CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 04/10/2014
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
CC/151/2014
Shabeer Ali.K.P,
Kolothparambil,
Thrithala, koppam, : Complainant
Pulasseri(po),
Palakkad – 679307.
(By Party in Person)
Vs
1.The Dealer,
Runway Mobikes,
Pattambi, Perinthalmanna Road- 679303.
2. The Manager,
Cochin Hero Motocorp,
3-E2, Third floor, Sania Plaza, : Opposite Parties
Mahakavi Bharathiyar Road,
Near KSRTC Bus stand,
Cochin – 682035.
3. The Manager,
Hero Motor corporation Ltd,34, community centre,
Basant Lok, Vasant vihar, New Delhi- 110057,
(By Adv. Redson Skaria)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member
The Case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Maestro(Engine no JF32AAEGE05740) (Reg.No. KL5264860) from first opposite party. The vehicle had a starting trouble and he had given it for service on 06/09/2014 and the first opposite party agreed to deliver the vehicle within 4 days. Due to the lack of availability of a particular spare part, the first opposite party contacted second opposite party and they delayed the service up to 25 days. The complainant sent e-mails and also tried to contact the second opposite party over phone, but they avoided the complainant and does not provide any information about the service. The complainant alleges that due to the negligence of the opposite parties he and his family had to suffer financial loss and time loss by which he had suffered great mental agony. Hence he had approached before this forum seeking compensation of Rs. 5000/- for the mental agony suffered due to the deficiency of the service of the opposite party.
Notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. They entered appearance through counsel and filed version contenting the following:-
The Complainant approached the first opposite party claiming that the vehicle had some starting trouble on 06/09/2014. The complainant wanted to rectify the errors in no time. The opposite party wanted to deliver back the vehicle after rectifying the errors so as to maintain the best service record which is essential for any firm in this competitive market. The opposite party admits that there was a shortage of “engine crank shaft” which is to the placed in the vehicle of the complainant. Due to the lack of the availability of that particular spare part the opposite party requested the complainant some time to repair the vehicle. The first opposite party intimated the fact of need for spare parts to the second opposite party who enquired over all the distributors in Kerala about the availability of the spare parts. The third opposite party due to the shifting of the warehouse from Gudgaun to Jaipur could not arrange the same except with some time. The first opposite party out of personal interest had provided a substitute vehicle to the complainant on 09/09/2014 itself. The complainant used the vehicle till he received his own vehicle repaired by the first opposite party. The first opposite party then had taken a spare from a new vehicle and fit to the complainant’s vehicle to avoid delay. There has not been any deliberate delay or deficiency or negligence in service from the part of the opposite parties. No mental agony of financial loss is caused to the complainant due to the act of these opposite parties. The first opposite party received the load of Maestero Two wheeler on 28/09/2014. On the same day itself the spare was taken from one of the scooter and got it properly fit to the complainant’s vehicle. The servicer was done free of cost except the change of oil. A total of 11 spare parts was removed from the newly unloaded vehicle and the cost of it will amount to around Rs.5409/- excluding the labour charges. The complainant had not even mentioned that a substituted vehicle was arranged by the first opposite party free of cost. Hiding these facts, complainant had filed this petition on an experimental basis. Therefore the complaint had to be dismissed.
Complainant filed chief affidavit. Exhibit A1 and A2 was marked from the part of the complainant. Opposite parties also filed chief affidavit along with application to cross examine the complainant. Since no counter was filed, the application was allowed and the complainant was direct to appear for cross examination. In spite of several chances, the complainant did not appear for cross examination. Hence evidence was closed and matter was heard and was posted for orders on 31/07/15. On 27/07/15 complainant filed petition to re-open evidence and to permit him to cross examine opposite parties. On 31/07/15, the complainant was absent and there was no representation. Hence application was dismissed.
The Issues that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
- If so, what is the relief ?
We had perused the documents as well as affidavits produced from both sides. Admittedly there is a delay of 25 days in delivering the vehicle to the complainant from the part of the opposite parties. Opposite parties submits that the delay so caused was not deliberate and it was due to the lack of availability of a particular spare part. In order to avoid inconvenience, it was submitted that the first opposite party out of personnel interest had provided a substitute vehicle to the complainant on 09/09/2015 itself. It is also submitted that the complainant used the vehicle till he received his own vehicle repaired by the first opposite party. Hence there is no deficiency of service or negligence from the side of the opposite party. The complainant had not mentioned that a substitute vehicle was arranged by the first opposite party free of cost in his complaint. The complainant after filing chief affidavit was not present before the forum for further proceedings. Opposite party had filed an application as IA 113/15 to cross examine the complainant. No counter was filed to the said application. The complainant was not present for cross examination. Hence an adverse inference had been drawn against the complainant and we accept the submission of the opposite party that no inconvenience was caused to the complainant due to the delay in repairing his vehicle. In the light of the above discussion we cannot attribute negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of July 2015.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Invoice and Insurance.
Ext.A2 –Photocopy of agreed delivery note by opposite party.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
No cost allowed
