Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/51

KUMARI CHITHRA K - Complainant(s)

Versus

CEO SS HYUNDAI - Opp.Party(s)

ANILKUMAR AS

04 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.51/14

JUDGMENT DATED:04.07.2018

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

SHRI. T.S.P MOOSATH                                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. RANJIT. R                                                          : MEMBER

 

Kumari Chithra K,

Padmalayam,

Kumarapuram P.O,                                                            : APPELLANT

Haripad-690 548.                                       

 

(By Adv: Sri. Anil Kumar.A.S)

 

            Vs.

1. CEO, SS Hyundai, Opp. CSI Church,

Mitchel Junction,

Mavelikkara, Alappuzha.

 

2. The Managing Director,

Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,

Marketing and Sales Head Quarters,

5^th & 6^th floor, Corporate one,

Baani Building, Plot No.1,

Commercial Centre, Jasola,                                            : RESPONDENTS

New Delhi-110 076.

 

3. Sri. Thomas Silva,

Area Parts and Service Manager,

Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,

Regional Office, NP.54,

Development Plot, Thiru-Vi-Ka,

Industrial Estate, Ekkaduthangal,

Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Rajeev S.S)

 

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN :  PRESIDENT

 

        Complainant is the appellant.  Not being satisfied with the order of compensation awarded on the complaint, CC.2/12 by the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha she has filed the above appeal.

2.     The case in short was that there was delay in repairing her vehicle which was entrusted to the first opposite party and as such she had to incur a lot of travelling expenses and suffer other inconveniences.  Imputing deficiency of service against the opposite parties she filed the complaint seeking compensation of Rs.30,000/-.  Opposite parties 1 and 3 filed separate version with the first opposite party contending that there was no deficiency of service and on account of mechanical defect of the vehicle some delay occured in its repair.  Third opposite party contended that the vehicle was delivered in perfect condition after repair to the complainant and it is not liable to compensate the complainant.

3.     The lower forum appreciating the materials produced by both sides holding that there was deficiency of service on the part of first opposite party directed that party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.  The evidence produced in the case revealed that the vehicle entrusted for repair was returned after a span of 1 ½ months, for which no satisfactory explanation was given by the first opposite party.  Compensation awarded is inadequate is the case of the complainant to prefer the appeal.

4.     The appeal being taken up for hearing today there is no representation for the appellant.  We heard counsel for the first respondent and also perused the records.

5.     On going through the complaint and the records it is seen the claim for compensation of Rs.30,000/- was raised by complainant setting forth a case that she had incurred travelling expenses for such sum during the period the motor vehicle was entrusted to the first opposite party for repair.  However, no records were produced to substantiate her case of incurring such travelling expenses, and, it was rightly and correctly returned down by the lower forum.  The lower forum on the materials placed found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party since there was considerable delay in returning the vehicle after repair.  The first opposite party/first respondent has submitted to that order.  We find that the case canvassed by the appellant to have more compensation than what was allowed by the forum is devoid of any merit.  Appeal is dismissed.

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT. R : MEMBER

 

 

VL.