Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/365/2014

G. SIVALINGAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARI - Opp.Party(s)

S. RAVI CHANDRAN

10 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                      BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                         Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 365/2014

[Against the Order in  C.C No.34/2012 dated 27.3.2014 on the file of the DCDRF, Thiruvallur ]

 

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF JUNE 2015

G.Sivalingam

S/o S.Ganapathy

No.9, Ayyappan Koil street

B.V.Puram, Avadi

Chennai 600 054                                                                                       ..Appellant/complainant

                                     Vs

Hari

Branch Manager – Sales

Concorde Motors (India) Limited

No.79-80-81 (SP) Ambattur Industrial Estate

Ambattur, Chennai 600 058                                                                            ..Respondent/opp.party

 

Counsel for Appellant/complainant      : Mr.S.Ravichandran

For Respondent/opp.party                  : Served called absent

 

The complainant is the appellant.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Thiruvallur in CC.No. 34/2012 dated 27.3.2014. 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 4.6.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Thiruvallur this commission made the following order.

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.        The unsatisfied complainant is the appellant.

2.        The complainant having purchased a TATA Nano car from the opposite party on 21.6.2012 by making full payment of Rs.1,82,000/- since the car had troubles on running and often stopped in the middle of journey even between the distance of 14 kms from the opposite party’s shop to the residence of the complainant. He had entrusted the vehicle for repair and service on 10.7.2012 which is still with the opposite party’s custody and thereby the consumer complaint filed, claiming for replacement with new car  for compensation and for costs.

3.          Before the District Forum, the opposite party though received the notice failed to appear and thereby the opposite party was set exparte and the complaint was allowed by directing the opposite party to return the car by rectifying all the defects made the vehicle is road worthy condition and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as costs.

4.        Not satisfied with the award, aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant filed this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation along with direction for the replacement of new car as prayed for in the complaint.

5.          Even before this Commission, after service of notice, respondent/op remained absent and thereby we were constrained to hear the arguments of the appellant in the absence of Respondent/opposite party and the order is being passed on merits.

6.            The complainant had purchased a NANO car for Rs. 1,82,000/- from the opposite party on 21.6.2012, which is said to have been delivered on 5.7.2012 and as per the documents under Ex.A.6, the vehicle was entrusted with the opposite party for alleged defects in the vehicle for repair on 10.7.2012 and the complainant alleged that the vehicle is still with the opposite party without delivery either repaired or un-repaired. On perusal of Ex.A.6, it is found that the vehicle was entrusted for repair after running about 132 kms, even though the complainant alleged that it was driven only for 14 kms on the date of receipt on 5.7.2012, but as per the invoice under delivery challan under Ex.A.1, the vehicle was delivered on 21.6.2012, anyway it is a fact that the vehicle was not in use till date of complaint from 10.7.2012 as per the job card. The opposite party never cared to appear before the District Forum or before this Commission to repudiate the allegations or contentions of the complainant and thereby the complainant’s case to be construed as true.

7.       The District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- and also with direction to rectify the defects and make the vehicle  road worthy condition and to return the same to the complainant. Even though, usually we are not inclined to give direction for replacing the defective vehicle with a new one unless it is proved that it had inherent manufacturing defect and in this case, after purchasing within 13 days after running only 132 kms,  when the opposite party would inclined to levy Rs.100/- per day as demarrage if the vehicle is not taken back from the garrage, even without any repair and returned to the complainant and the opposite party never cared to take action in this regard, we are inclined to give direction for refund of purchase money as no purpose would be served by ordering replacement with a new car at  this stage and thereby the order of the District Forum to be modified accordingly,

                 In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum, Thiruvallur in CC. 34/2012 dated 27.3.2014   directing the opposite  party to rectify the defects of the car  and make it road worthy and return to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost are all hereby set aside. The opposite party is directed to take back the car, already entrusted with them bearing Reg.No. TN 20 CZ 9447 and to return the purchase value of Rs.1,82,000/- paid by the complainant with 6% interest from the date of complaint till realisation and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost.

         The above directions shall be complied within six weeks from the date of this order.

 

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                        A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER