D.O.F:01/08/2023 D.O.O:06/02/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.231/2023
Dated this, the 06th day of February 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G :MEMBER
Shaji. E.C,
Thusharam (H),
Perdala (P.O),
Vidyagiri, Badiadka – 671551, : Complainant
Kasaragod.
And
Dileep
AMG Commercial Vehicles,
NH 66, AK Archade, : Opposite Party
Adkathbail, Kasaragod.
ORDER
SMT. BEENA. K.G :MEMBER
The complainant is the owner of Mahindra – E auto Trio KL 14 AC 3084. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 17/04/2023 at 6.30 pm. Soon after the accident it is informed to the showroom manager one Mr. Dileep and as per his direction the vehicle was entrusted to Opposite Parties Cherkala service centre at 9.30 Am. All the documents of the vehicle is also entrusted to the showroom manager on that date itself. Thereafter whenever the complainant approached Opposite Party, it is informed that due to the non availability of spare parts, delay occurred in repair. Even after 3 months of entrustment also, no repair work started and the vehicle was kept idle there. Due to the non repair of the vehicle the complainant send an e-mail complaint to the corporate office of Opposite party. Thereafter the Kannur showroom manager contacted the complainant and informed that the accident was not informed to him. Due to the intervention of opposite party’s Kannur office the vehicle was taken to Kannur service centre. The complainant is eking his livelihood by plying his autorikshw. As the opposite party dragged the repair works and the vehicle is kept idle in the service centre ,he is unable to pay loan installments and meet his day to day expenses. He was earning Rs. 1500/- per day with the auto. Due to the lethargic and irresponsible attitude of opposite party the complainant suffered huge loss and un told miseries. Hence this complaint for necessary redressal.
Notice of opposite party serviced. But remained absent name called absent set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext A1 to A8. The main issues raised for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite Party in non repair of the vehicle?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so what is the relief?
The complainant is the owner of the vehicle E- auto –TREO-SFT which was purchased on 06/09/2022, Ext A1 is the Performa invoice. On 17/04/2023 at about 6.30 pm the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident when a dog jumped across the vehicle during the complainant was plying the autorikshaw. As soon as the accident, it is informed to opposite Party and as per his direction the vehicle with documents entrusted to the showroom manager of opposite Party on that day itself. But opposite party delayed the repair works by saying that the spare parts has not yet come. Even after 3 months of waiting the vehicle was kept idle in the courtyard of opposite party, so the complainant send an email complaint to the corporate office of opposite party. As a result the Kannur showroom manager contacted Opposite party and taken the vehicle to their service centre at Kannur.
We carefully gone through the documents and affidavit produced by the complainant. Ext A1 is the E performa invoice, Ext A2 is the complaint letter, Ext A3 is the photos of the vehicle after the accident, Ext A4 are the photos of vehicle at showroom, Ext A5 is the email complaint, Ext A6 is the RC book, Ext A7 is the list of date and events, Ext A8 is the copy of the complaint given in the Kasaragod Police station.
Ext A1 to A8 proves the case of the complainant is true, and he is entitled for relief. There is inordinate delay in repair works. In the absence of rebuttal evidence there is gross negligence on the part of opposite not only in non repair of the vehicle but also remaining absent after serving notice from this commission. Even after filing this case also opposite party had sufficient time to repair the vehicle and settle the matter. The complainant in his affidavit states that he is eking his livelihood by plying this auto and he was getting Rs 1500/ per day. There is nothing to disbelieve the affidavit of the complainant. Considering the loss of income and mental agony of the complainant, he is entitled for damages. The commission holds that an amount of Rs 50,000/- is a reasonable income in this case as he is not in a position to earn income for the last more than one year. The opposite party is bound to repair the e-auto defect free and return it to the complainant at the earliest in a defect free condition.
Therefore complaint is allowed directing opposite parties to repair and handover the vehicle in a defect free condition to the complainant within 30 days along with a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) and Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost to the complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Proforma Invoice
A2- Complaint letter
A3- Complaint details
A4- Vehicle at showroom photos
A5- E-mail complaint
A6- R.C book copy
A7- List of dates & events
A8- copy of the complaint given in the Kasaragod Police station
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
