By: Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
Case of the complainant:-
1. Complainant is the owner of KL 10 AG 8949 registered Honda Activa Bike 2011 model. Opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the above vehicle and opposite party No.1 is the authorised service centre. Complainant approached opposite party No.1 on 02/03/2019 to rectify the following defects like (1) starting complaint (2) left rear view mirror (3) foot rest rectification (4) mileage checking (5) oil change (6) indicator (7) seat lock.
2. One of the authorised person of opposite party No.1 made an estimate of Rs.1,300/- for the service charges of the above defects and he assured that he will rectify and deliver the vehicle to complainant on the same day evening . By believing the words of opposite party No.1 who is the authorized service centre of opposite party No.2, complainant given the vehicle to opposite party No.1 for service and to rectify the other above mentioned defects. At the time of entrusting the vehicle to opposite party No.1, they provided a receipt for the same to complainant.
3. Thereafter one of the staff of opposite No.1 called the complainant and informed the complainant that the battery of the above vehicle needs to be replaced. Then complainant replied that battery had two years warranty and changing of battery only after checking the charge etc. As per the direction of opposite party No.1, complainant approached them for getting the vehicle on the same day 02/03/2019, but opposite party No.1 was not finished the entrusted works at that time. Again on 05/03/2019 opposite party No.1 called the complainant through phone and informed him that the repair works of the vehicle had finished. On that day at 6 ‘O’ clock complainant went to opposite party No.1 shop, then opposite party No.1 given a bill for Rs.3,087/- to complainant. In addition to that bill another bill for Rs.1,100/- also given to complainant on the same day as service labour bill. Moreover an additional tax bill of Rs.799/- also given to complainant by opposite party No.1. Due to his helpless condition complainant paid the whole bill amount provided by opposite party No.1 to him. But opposite parties did not provide the changed spare parts of the vehicle as per the bill to complainant.
4. Then complainant tried to start the vehicle but it did not start due to the defect of battery and opposite party No.1 wanted to change the battery. But the battery in complainant’s vehicle already had guarantee and they had provided new battery instead of the old one. On 06/03/2019 complainant approached opposite party No.1 for taking the vehicle back, then he realized that the foot rest had not been changed. Then opposite party No.1 changed the foot rest and given a bill for Rs.831/- to complainant. Then complainant again realized that the indicator is not working and he again complained this to opposite party No.1 and he rectified that defect and again given a bill for Rs.87/-.
5. Due to the deficiency in service from the side of opposite party No.1 the vehicle was in the garage of opposite party No.1 service centre without sufficient reason and complainant paid additional bill for Rs.5,094/-. Hence there is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. Complainant is a senior citizen and the vehicle used for travelling 31706 kilometre. Hence this complaint.
6. Prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled get Rs.4,604/- , the additional amount received by opposite parties from complainant and Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and Rs.15,000/-as cost.
7. On admission of the complaint, notice sent from this Commission through speed post to opposite parties and notice served on them and they appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version.
8. In their version, they denied all the averments in the complaint except those which are expressly admitted. In their version they stated that complainant had entrusted the vehicle to them for servicing and rectifying the defects like starting complaint, seat lock repair, glass replacement , mileage checking and battery checking etc. They again stated that, they had rectified all the defects mentioned in the service job card given by them to complainant on 02/03/2019 and for that they had given a bill for Rs.1,300/-. While checking the vehicle they realized that the vehicle needed a full inspection and they informed this to complainant at 12.37 pm on the same day. With the permission of complainant opposite party No.3 fully inspected the vehicle. Then at 2.27 pm opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that the battery of the vehicle had complaints. Then complainant told to opposite party that he will change the battery by himself because the battery had warranty and directed the opposite party No.1 to change the vehicle parts which had defect. Thereafter on 02/03/2019 opposite party No.1 called the complainant to inform the complainant that the work had finished.
9. They again stated that they had repaired the vehicle and done the service work as per the direction of complainant after informing the battery complaints to him. Even though complainant was not ready to take back the vehicle from opposite party No.1 service centre, they informed the complainant on the same day to take back the vehicle after repair. On 05/03/2019 at about 5.00 pm opposite party No.1 called the complainant to take back the vehicle and they had given a service bill of Rs.4,986/- to complainant. Thereafter complainant detached the battery from the vehicle and returned to opposite party No.1 service centre after changing the battery. On the very same day opposite party No.1 had entrusted the vehicle to complainant. They again contended that complainant had not directed them to change the ladies foot rest, indicator buzzer on 02/03/2019. That is why they did not provide the additional accessories and after receiving the direction from complainant they provide the additional accessories and an additional bill of Rs.918/-. They admitted that an estimate of Rs.1,300/- given to complainant for the work as per the direction of complainant. But when they inspected the vehicle in detail, they realized that the vehicle needed additional works, and as per the direction of complainant they did the additional works of the vehicle and given a bill for Rs.4,986/-.
10. Opposite party again contended that, they had done the service of the vehicle within time and informed complainant on the same day. But complainant did not taken back the vehicle on that day. There is no deficiency of service done from the side of opposite party No.1 and there was no misbehaviour from their side. Hence they are not liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complaint may be dismissed.
11. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A7. Ext.A1 is the original job card given by opposite party No.1 to complainant on 02/03/2019. Ext. A2 series are the original service spare bills given by opposite party No.1 to complainant on 05/03/2019. Ext. A3 is the original service labour bill given by opposite party No.1 to complainant on 05/03/2019, Ext. A4 is the copy of the warranty card, Ext. A5 is the original AMC & EW bill given by opposite party No.1 to complainant on 05/03/2019, Ext. A6 is the original service spare bill given by opposite party No.1 to complainant 06/03/2019, Ext. A7 is the original counter sales given by opposite party No.1 to complainant on 06/03/2019. Opposite parties are filed an affidavit and documents. Documents are marked as Ext. B1 to B3.Ext. B1 is the photocopy of Service job card, Ext.B2 is the original Vodafone bill & call history details (7 Nos). Ext. B3 is the Vodafone bill & Calls history details (10 Nos) .
12. After perusing the affidavit and documents from complainant and opposite parties, the following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed?
- Reliefs and cost?.
13 .Pont No.1 &2
Complainant approached opposite party No.1 on 02/03/2019 to rectify the following defects like (1) Starting complaint (2) Left rear view mirror (3) Foot rest rectification (4) Mileage checking (5) Oil change (6) Indicator (7) Seat lock and opposite party No.1 made an estimate of Rs.1,300/- for the service charges of the above defects and he assured that he will rectify and deliver the vehicle to complainant on the same day evening. At the time of entrusting the vehicle to opposite party No.1, they provided receipt for the same. When complainant called the opposite party in the evening on 02/03/2019, he was informed that the repair work of the vehicle has not been completed. On 05/03/2019 at 6 ‘O’ clock when complainant went to opposite party No.1 shop, then opposite party No.1 given a bill for Rs.3,087/- to complainant. In addition to that bill another bill for Rs.1,100/- also given to complainant on the same day as service labour bill. Moreover an additional tax bill of Rs.799/- also given to complainant by opposite party No.1. Due to his helpless condition he paid the whole bill amount provided by opposite party No.1 to him. Then complainant tried to start the vehicle but it did not start due to the battery complaint. But the battery in complainant's vehicle already had guarantee, so they had provided new battery instead of the old one. On 06/03/2019 complainant approached opposite party No.1 for taking the vehicle back, then he realized that the foot rest has not been changed. Then opposite party No.1 changed the foot rest and given a bill for Rs.831/- to complainant. Then complainant again realized that indicator is not working and he again complained this to opposite party No.1 and they rectified that defect and again given a bill for Rs.87/- to complainant.
14. Opposite parties denied all the allegations made by complainant against them. They stated that they had given Ext. A1 estimate for an amount of Rs. 1300/- to complainant for the repairs like starting complaint, seat lock repair, glass replacement, mileage checking, battery checking etc. It is clearly mentioned in Ext.B1 document produced by them. They again contented that while detailed inspection, it is realised that the above vehicle needed full check-up and with the permission of complainant, opposite party No.1 done the same. Opposite party No.1 also intimated the complainant that the battery had complaint and complainant replied that he will manage the battery works. Opposite party No.1 finished the work on the same day that means on 02/03/2019 and intimated the same to complainant. But complainant did not come on that day. On 05/03/2019 complainant approached opposite party for taking the vehicle, then also another bill for Rs. 4986/- given to complainant and complainant paid the same. They again stated that there was no direction to change the ladies foot rest and indicator buzzer at the time of entrusting the vehicle to opposite parties. As per opposite parties case they informed the complainant to take back the vehicle from their service centre on 02/03/2019. The Ext. B2 and Ext. B3 produced by the opposite parties are the call details of opposite parties to complainant. There is no deficiency of service from their side. Hence they are not liable to compensate complainant.
15. From the facts and documents produced by complainant it is clear that there was some misunderstanding between complainant and opposite party No.1. When complainant approached opposite party No.1 for service and repair of the vehicle complainant clearly pointed out what works his vehicle needed. He clearly stated in his complaint and affidavit about the repair works he needed like starting complaint, left rear view mirror, ladies foot rest repair, mileage checking, oil change, indicator and seat lock. When complainant approached opposite parties for the above works and opposite parties given an estimate of Rs. 1300/-. But opposite party No.1 put an estimate for the repairs like starting complaint, seat lock repair, glass replacement, mileage checking and battery checking and they had given an estimate for the same.
16. But the poor complainant does not know what the opposite party No.1 marked about the services in the job card. He is a senior citizen. The arguments complainant delivered before the Commission are somewhat truthful. He clearly mentioned about the works he needed for his vehicle and opposite parties done some works requested by complainant and some other works did by their whims and fancies. From the facts stated by both parties we are on the opinion that it is opposite party No.1’s idea to take the vehicle for service in a minimum amount of Rs.1300/-. After the vehicle was taken in to their custody opposite parties informed the complainant that additional work was required and again directed to done that works for the vehicle. More over they gave an exorbitant bill to complainant for doing the same.
17. Complainant believed that only Rs. 1300/- is needed for the service and their repair of his vehicle, but the opposite party No.1 done an unfair trade practice by doing extra works which the poor complainant cannot wanted. Complainant is not an expert in vehicle mechanism. Hence opposite party No.1 assured the service the vehicle for an amount of Rs.1300/-, but he mentioned some works directed by complainant to them while entrusting the vehicle. A layman did not know the works mentioned were done or not. Opposite party No.1 can clearly given the works that is to be done by them at the time of entrusting the vehicle to them. Instead of doing the work entrusted, they had done extra works for grabbing the money of complainant. From the documents it is clear that opposite party No.1 did not provide the job card to complainant.
18. From the call list that means Ext.B2, it is clear that opposite party No.1 contacted the complainant on 02/03/2019, but it is not clear that the conversation between complainant and opposite party No.1 were regarding the taking back of the vehicle from their garage. For the sake of an argument, if we take the contention of opposite party No.1, it is not fair to provide a huge bill instead of the estimate of Rs.1300/- given on 02/03/2019. The documents Ext. A2, A3, A5 ,A6 and A7 , it is clear that opposite party No.1 had given a huge bill of Rs. 4986/- to complainant while he approached opposite party No.1 to take back his vehicle. But no documents produced by opposite party No.1 to show that there is a direction and consent given by complainant to opposite parties for the further works done by them. All the bills produced by complainant were dated 05/03/2019 if opposite party had prepared the bill on 02/03/2019, the date on the bill would have been 02/03/2019. The poor complainant had paid the bill due to his helplessness. Thereafter also the vehicle not get started after the repair also. Then opposite parties said that it is due to the battery complaint, but complainant not entrusted the opposite party No.1 to change the battery. He himself done the same. On 06/03/2019 complainant again paid Rs. 831/- for changing the ladies foot rest of the vehicle. Thereafter on the same day , when complainant put the indicator while travelling, he realised that indicator is also not working. Again opposite party No.1 given a bill for Rs, 87/- to complainant for repairing indicator. Due to various reasons complainant paid Rs.5094/- to opposite parties instead of Rs. 1300/-. Another contention of complainant regarding the spare parts is also believable. He contented that the already changed spare parts of the vehicle did not given to complainant. Opposite parties did not provide the changed spare parts of the vehicle as per the bill to complainant. Opposite parties had no case that they had provided the changed spare parts to complainant.
19. There is clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. Complainant is a senior citizen having illness like asthma, diabetes, and disk complaints and his wife is a heart patient. The act of opposite parties caused so many difficulties and mental agony to complainant and his wife who is also senior citizen.
20. After filing version on 25/01/2020, they filed affidavit only on 20/10/2021. Thereafter they are not ready for hearing for the coming postings of the case. Hence on 14/01/2022 , the complaint posted for orders on 21/02/2022. Thereafter they advanced the matter on 14/02/2022 but on that day also they are not ready for hearing. Thereafter heard the matter and posted for orders. There are so many chances given to opposite parties to settle this complaint. There is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite parties are deficient in service.
21. Point No.3
We allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.5094/-(Rupees Five thousand and ninety four only) to complainant as the amount he had already paid to opposite parties.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/(Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
