- Lalia Das,
BE-135, Salt Lake City, Sector-1, Kolkata-64. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Chandrani Nissan,
1/1-A, Mohindra Roy Lane, Ground Floor, Kol-46.
- Ms. Shilpa Nayar, Director, Chandrani Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.,
Chandrani Tower, 739, Anandapur, EM Bye Pass,
P.S. Kasba, Kolkata-700 107.
- Mr. Amitava Bhandari, Manager, Authorised Service Centre,
Chandrani Nissan,
P-47, Taratala Road, Near BOC India, Brace Bridge, Kol-88. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 20 Dated 24-08-2015
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a Nissan Micra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘car’) being model no.Nissan Micra DCI XV BS IV, chassis no.MDHFCUK13B1001557, engine no.D001169 from o.p. no.1 on 21.3.11. After purchase complainant had received all warranty and other documents from o.p. no.1 and her car was duly insured by Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Thereafter complainant purchased alloy wheels from M/s M. Jan & Sons and had the same fitted to the car. The car was involved in an accident, while being driven by complainant, on 1.8.11. The car was heavily damaged and the incident was reported to Bidhannagar P.S. and complainant filed a general diary being GD No.70 of 2011 in the morning of 2.8.11. The car was sent to o.p. no.3 for repair. At the time of delivery of the damaged car complainant received a copy of the repair order being no.ROAB11000337 dt.3.8.11 from o.p. no.3. Complainant enquired the approximate time for conducting the repair and she was assured by the service centre of o.p. no.1 that they would inform the insurance company and intimate them the extent of damage and procedural work as required. O.p. no.3 assured the complainant that they would repair the car and returned it to complainant as soon as possible. After one month i.e. 3.9.11 complainant had received a phone call from o.p. no.3 and o.p. no.3 requested the complainant to deposit Rs.50,000/- as advance against repair work. Complainant was surprised since the car had been purchased only 5 months ago and thus it ought to have been covered under the new car warranty arrangement and whatever cost was incurred for repair would be covered by the insurance company. Complainant protested to pay any amount but o.p. no.3 informed the complainant that recovering such cost from insurance company would take long time which would delay the entire repair process. Finding no other alternative complainant had to pay Rs.50,000/- through cheque on 3.9.11 to expedite the repair. Again on 31.12.11 o.p. no.3 informed the complainant over phone to deposit another Rs.20,000/- to obtain more mechanical parts of the car which were not available with the service centre. Complainant asked o.p. no.3 that why she was not informed about the lack of material parts earlier but o.p. no.3 refused to answer any question. Again finding no other alternative complainant had to deposit Rs.20,000/- though she had not received any repair status of her car. After meeting with o.p. nos.2 and 3, complainant finally received her car on 14.2.12 i.e. more or less after six and half months. The service centre provided a bill for Rs.4,51,940/- as final bill. Complainant was astonished to find such bill being presented to her despite the fact that the car was purchased on 21.3.11 and which was covered under new car warranty period. In the warranty document it was mentioned that all repair work pertaining to the car are to be carried out would be covered under the new car warranty. Moreover, at the time of receiving the repaired car complainant had noticed that the alloy wheels were missing. Therefore, complainant refused to sign the full customer’s satisfaction document. The service centre said that it was not mentioned that the original wheels had been replaced when the complainant deposited the damaged car to service centre. O.p. no.3 informed the complainant that they were unable to release her car without receiving signed full customer’s satisfaction document. Complainant had to sign the document in order to retrieve her car from the service centre. The alloy wheels had not been returned by the service centre. Complainant had approached the insurance company for clarification who, after examining the extent of repair work carried out on the car, had arranged to pay for Rs.3,24,173/- the balance amount of Rs.57,767/- was to be paid by complainant. Complainant paid Rs.1,27,767/- inclusive of amount paid in Sept. 2011 and Dec. 2011. Complainant had alleged that the bill was unjustified and the service centre had replaced the alloy wheels of the car with normal wheels. Complainant contacted with o.ps. for her grievance but in vain. On 5.3.12 complainant sent a legal notice highlighting her grievances and seeking just and equitable compensation. Complainant received a reply from Advocate Subhasis Das Gupta, the advocate of o.ps. In the reply o.ps. had suppressed the fact about the alloy wheels and they had not mentioned any details regarding the amount taken from the complainant as advance. Hence, the application praying for a direction upon the o.ps. to pay or to reimburse the excess amount of Rs.1,27,767/- current market price of the alloy wheels along with compensation and cost.
O.ps. appeared before the Forum and filed w/v. In their w/v they denied all the material allegations interalia stated that o.ps. do not admit anything which will not transpire from the record. They had not assured the complainant that the car would be repaired and returned to the complainant as soon as possible. O.p. no.3 informed the complainant that recovery of cost of repair from insurance company would take time and therefore, he requested the complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- as advance. At the time of delivery of the car the complainant was asked to sign a full customer’s satisfaction document but the complainant refused to sign the same since complainant has alleged alloy wheels were missing. But the repair order clearly does not show that the wheels have been replaced by the complainant with alloy wheels. On 2.8.11 complainant came to service centre of o.ps. with severely damaged car. The survey was done by insurance company on 31.8.11. The approval of the insurance company was made on 1.8.11. Complainant made an advance of Rs.50,000/- on 3.9.11. Thereafter insurance company made payment and after payment by them chassis of the car was repaired first. In the second phase the door and body of the car were repaired. In the third phase, quarter panel, in the fourth phase suspension, condenser, radiator and the top body of the car and in the fifth phase some parts were repaired. On 25.12.11 when the engine was tested, it was found that the engine was not functioning properly and the facts were reported to the insurance company. The surveyor from the insurance company visited the service centre on 26.12.11 and surveyed the engine of the car of the complainant and asked the o.ps. to repair the engine and accordingly, the engine was repaired. On 2.1.12 another defect was detected in the piston ring of the car and the same was subsequently repaired and all these phases of repair work took some days and after test drive the car was delivered in normal and good running condition on 14.2.12. There was neither any deficiency or delay in service on the part of o.ps. nor there was any unfair trade practice. The car was repaired in such a way that it became a new car. On test drive the car was found in a very good and normal running condition when the car was delivered. The allegation of theft of alloy wheels is defamatory and is denied. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased the car on 21.3.11 and it is also admitted fact that the said car was involved in an accident on 1.8.11. Accordingly, complainant made a general diary with Bidhannagar P.S. Complainant had taken the car to service centre for repair on 3.8.11. After one month i.e. on 3.9.11 the complainant received a phone call from service centre of o.ps. to pay Rs.50,000/- as advance. Complainant refused to pay any amount but when o.p. no.3 informed the complainant that if she would pay the amount that would expedite the repair work. Complainant being a cancer patient had to pay Rs.50,000/- to get the car ready as early as possible. But after three months complainant again received a phone call on 31.12.11 from o.p. no.3 to pay another Rs.20,000/-. Complainant is an aged person suffering from cancer and also suffering from ailment with her knee which made it difficult to complainant to walk. So, complainant again paid Rs.20,000/- to get the car repaired as soon as possible. But thereafter, o.ps. took several pleas to justify their delay to deliver the car in question to the complainant. Ultimately, they handed over the car to complainant on 14.2.12. O.ps. took the plea in their w/v that they have repaired the car in five phases. It is astonishing that the service centre of a so much renowned company detected one new defect after every one phase of repair work. For what reason o.ps. had not intimated the approximate expenditure and time to repair the car in question that is best known to them. Complainant had not prayed for the amount which the service centre has charged. The insurance company made a survey to repair the car and the insurance company paid Rs.3,24,173/-. The balance amount of Rs.57,767/- out of the final bill amount of Rs.4,51,940/- was paid by complainant. Complainant already paid Rs.50,000/- in Sept. 2011 and Rs.20,000/- in Dec. 2011 in advance. In their w/v o.ps. stated that they had to collect the spare parts from the manufacturer and for that reason there was a delay to repair the car in question. O.ps. did not inform the complainant that they had to arrange the spare parts from manufacturer and it would take time. So, we are in the view that it is only the afterthought by o.ps. They have charged the complainant more or less same price of a new car. The new car warranty clause provides free normal repair. Complainant had not prayed total repairing cost from o.ps. for warranty. Insurance company already paid Rs.3,24,173/-. O.ps. did not provide any normal repair which was within the warranty. They have charged for everything. Moreover, o.ps. delivered the car after more or less after six and half months. We find no cogent document which shows the reason for this inordinate delay. The deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being inforce undertaken to be performed in relation to any service. So, we find deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against all the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) only which was paid by complainant as advance and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
