DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2024
Filed on: 08/12/2017
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO. 491/2017
COMPLAINANT
Basil V.L., S/o. V.M. Lazer, Vadassery House, House No. 385, Kinfra P.O., Koratty, Khanna Nagar, Thrissur 680309.
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Manager, EVM Volkswagen, EVM Passenger Cars India Pvt. ltd., Building No. 404C, MC Road, Nangelippady, pullyvazhi P.O., Perumbavoor 683542.
(Rep. by Adv. Maneesha R., Madathiparambil, Near Aquinas College, Edakochi 682010)
F I N A L O R D E R
Sreevidhia T.N., Member:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant had entrusted his Polo Volkswagen car having Registration No. KL 64-C5060 to the EVM Volkswagen service centre at Perumbavoor for doing some repair works. There was heavy smell of the petrol during driving. The ABS breaking warning light of the car was also glowing continuously. The complainant had entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party for rectifying these two defects. After the entrustment of the vehicle the complainant had enquired about the status of the vehicle and the opposite party had informed the complainant that all the work except replacing of the broken pipe had been completed. The opposite party also informed that replacement of the broken pipe was not completed due to the non-availability of the new pipe and the vehicle would be ready after two days. Subsequently the opposite party informed that the broken pipe had been replaced but they found that fuel delivery unit has leak, hence it should be replaced and cost of the fuel delivery unit would be Rs.6,000/-. Since they don’t have the stock they have booked the same from the main office and vehicle can be delivered only after replacing the fuel delivery unit. The complainant had explained to the service manager that he came to the service centre by driving the vehicle. The smell of the petrol would not feel if the complaint is inside the fuel tank and there is no possibility of any complaint for the fuel delivery unit as the vehicle has driven only 21000 km till then. Upon the complainant’s explanation the opposite party informed that the complainant don’t have to pay any amount for changing the broken pipe and for replacing the sensor. On 28/07/2017, the opposite party brought the vehicle to the complainant’s home along with a tax invoice for Rs.16,351/-, claiming that the opposite party had done the periodical service which has to be done in 30000 km. The opposite party had done the periodical service without the consent of the complainant which was not at all requiring at that point of time when the vehicle was driven only 21000 km. The opposite party had also claimed that they had changed the oil filter, spark plug etc. at the time of the 30000 km periodical service.
There was heavy smell of the petrol inside the vehicle when the vehicle was brought to the complainant’s house and hence the complainant had paid Rs.10,400/- only and informed the opposite party that the balance amount would be paid after rectifying the foul smell of the petrol inside the vehicle.
Again after one week, the ABS light was on and the bad smell of the petrol remains the same. Since the complainant was not satisfied with the service of the opposite party, he had approached another vehicle service centre and after thorough examination they informed the complainant that the engine oil is changed as informed by the opposite party for which they have charged from the complainant. The opposite parties also informed the complainant that they have done a cleaning of interior area and wheel alignment of the said vehicle at free of cost to show that they had done favours to the complainant but on verifying the same, the complainant came to know that all were false statements to make undue advantage from the complainant.
The complainant had sent letters to the opposite party but the notices sent to the opposite party are returned with an endorsement ‘not claimed’.
Hence the complainant had approached the Commission seeking orders directing the opposite party to refund Rs.14,000/- (amount collected by the opposite party as repair charges Rs.10,400/-, rent paid for hiring the vehicle Rs.3,000/-, expenses incurred for communication and other Rs.500/-) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and such other reliefs.
- Notice
Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 19/12/2017. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed their version.
- Version of opposite party
The present complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant had brought the car to the service station of opposite party on 20/07/2017 for carrying out 30000 km’s service. At the time of handing over the car complainant had informed the supervisor two complaints viz. (a) petrol smell in the car (b) glowing of ABS lamp.
The service staff, upon preliminary inspection concluded that the petrol smell originated from a damaged fuel pipe. Subsequently it came to light that leak resulted from a crack in the fuel delivery unit (fuel pump/FDU) and not fuel pipe and the FDU required replacement. This fact was informed to the complainant and an order for new FDU was placed against the VIN number of the complainant’s car. Upon receipt of a new FDU, the same was replaced in the car after removing the damaged one. The damaged one was handed over to the complainant along with the car. When the fuel pump and fuel line are disconnected, petrol will flow out and occasionally flow into the car. This is something natural and normal while a repair of the fuel pump or fuel line is carried out. The only method to remove the smell is to keep the car in open air. Lingering smell of fuel is not a matter of carelessness and deficiency in service. The smell of petrol which might have lingered for 4-5 days is solely due to the hasty manner in which the case was taken from the custody of opposite party.
With regard to the allegations regarding complaint of glowing ABS lamp it was found that the glow occurred due to a short in the wire of the front RH ABS due to rat bite. The complainant was rectified by the opposite party. The allegation regarding persisting complaint of ABS lamp even after rectification of the complaint is not known to the opposite party.
Eventhough an invoice for Rs.16,351/- was generated by the opposite party, the complainant refused to effect payment of the cost of FDU until the smell of petrol dissipated and paid for the balance work carried out as be had checked the car before taking delivery and was satisfied with the work carried out by the opposite party. an amount of Rs.5,951/- still remains unpaid to the opposite party.
The allegation that the opposite party had carryout 30000 km free service when the car had only run 21000 km is made with ulterior motives. As per the schedule the service of Volkswagen vehicle is to be carried out every 15000 km or after 1 year whichever is earlier. The complainant was aware of this fact. Wheel alignment does not form part of the 30000 km service.
There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.
- Evidence
The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidences filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A4. The complainant is cross examined by opposite party’s counsel and his depositions are recorded as ‘PW1’.
Opposite party filed one document which was marked as Exbt. B1. Evidence closed.
Both parties filed argument notes. Heard the counsel for the complainant.
Exbt. A1: Copy of repair order dated 20/07/2017.
Exbt. A2: Copy of the tax invoice issued by the opposite party dated 20/07/2017 for Rs.16,351/-
Exbt. A3: Copy of the tax invoice for Rs.944/- issued by Luxus Motors, Cheranellore, Kochi.
Exbt. A4: Copy of the service bill for Rs.655/- issued by Essar Automobiles.
Opposite party filed 5 documents along with the version. Eventhough 5 documents were submitted by the opposite party, Document No. 1, Photostat copy of Repair order dated 20/07/2017 was marked from the side of the opposite party. This document was marked at the time of cross examination of the complainant by the opposite party. Evidence of the complainant was closed on 22/02/2023 and then adjourned to 07/07/2023. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence on these postings and the case was posted for final hearing.
Heard the counsel for the complainant on 04/07/2024. Opposite party was absent on 04/07/2024. The complaint is posted for final orders to 30/07/2024.
- The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows.
- Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
- If so, reliefs and costs?
The case of the complainant is that opposite party has not rectified the defects of the car and had done periodical service which has to be done in 30000 km which is very much earlier and without the consent of the complainant. The complainant alleges that the opposite party had issued a bill of Rs.16,351/- for charging the oil, filter etc. to rectify the complaint of petrol leak and consequent leak. The complainant alleges that all the defects are persisting after one week ie. ABS light was on after one week and the foul smell of the petrol remains the same. Hence the complainant had paid only Rs.10,400/- to the opposite party.
The opposite party in their version states that the complainant brought the car to the service station of the opposite party on 20/07/2017 for carrying out 30000 km service and at the time of handing over the car, the complainant had informed the supervisor two complaints. (a) petrol smell in the car (b) glowing of AB lamp.
Opposite party also states in their version that eventhough an invoice of Rs.16,351/- was generated by the opposite party, the complainant refused to effect payment of the FDU until the smell of petrol dissipated and paid for the balance work carried out at the complaint had checked the car before taking delivery and was satisfied with the work carried out by the opposite party. An amount of Rs.5,951/- still remains unpaid to the opposite party. As per Exbt. A1 Produced by the complainant it is a repair order issued by the opposite party. As per Exbt. A2 opposite party has only received Rs.10,400/-. As per Exbt. B1 produced by opposite party, the complainant had entrusted his vehicle to the opposite party for doing 30000 km service, for checking the ABS sensor of the vehicle and for reporting about the fuel smell inside the vehicle.
From the available evidence filed by the complainant in this case we can’t prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party. The complainant has not taken any interest to take steps for appointing an expert commissioner to inspect the complainant’s vehicle and to file a report on it. Without the report of an expert we can’t ascertain that the alleged defects are still persisting. The complainant states in his argument note that due to the non-coperation of the opposite party the complainant had find if difficult to travel without vehicle and got it serviced and repaired by M/s. Luxus Motors, Cheranelloor, Kochi and had spent Rs.32,001/- for the parts replaced and Rs.944/- as labour charges. The complainant had produced Exbt. A4 to prove that he had spent Rs.744/- for changing ABS and for ECM Scanning charges. But the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that he had spent Rs.32,001/- for the parts replaced. The complainant also states in his argument note that he had to spent Rs.3,000/- as rent for hiring vehicles when the case was given for repairs. But sufficient documents are not produced by the complainant to prove this fact.
We have thoroughly verified the facts of the case, version filed by the opposite party and the documents and evidence from both sides. The complainant has failed to establish his case by producing sufficient documents.
The initial onus to prove deficiency in service is upon the complainant who alleges it. The opposite party can’t held liable for any deficiency in service without any proof.
In the case of SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that it is the complainant who had approached the Commission therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party can’t be held responsible for deficiency in service.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims of deficiency in service or negligence of the opposite party. Therefore the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Resultantly, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of evidence regarding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of July, 2024.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
V.Ramachandran, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
Exbt. A1: Copy of repair order dated 20/07/2017.
Exbt. A2: Copy of the tax invoice issued by the opposite party dated 20/07/2017 for Rs.16,351/-
Exbt. A3: Copy of the tax invoice for Rs.944/- issued by Luxus Motors, Cheranellore, Kochi.
Exbt. A4: Copy of the service bill for Rs.655/- issued by Essar Automobiles.
Opposite party’s Exhibits
Nil
Deposition
PW1: Basiil V.L.
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 491/2017
Order Date: 31/07/2024
