Date of Filing      : 30.05.2012

                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 28.11.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                  .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com., ICWA(Inter)., B.L.,                                                  ....MEMBER-II

 

CC. No.14/2012

THIS MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

1.G.Daniel (Deceased),

S/o.Govindhan,

2.D.Felix,

3.M.G.Sagayam,

4.D.Franklin,  

 

2 to 4 complainants are LRs of Deceased G.Daniel residing at 

 

No.2/118, Ambedkar Street,

Injambakkam, Chennai 600 115.                                                         ……Complainants.

                                                                            //Vs//

The General Manager (Service Station),

Harsha Toyata,

Harsha Auto Mobiles Private Limited,

No.142A, Poonamallee High Road, 

Velapanchavadi, Chennai 600 077.                                                  …..opposite party. 

 

Counsel for the complainants                                   :   Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                                 :  Mr.V.Gajapathy, Advocate.

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 18.11.2022 in the presence of  Mr.A.R.Poovannan Advocate, and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by both parties this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in not servicing the vehicle properly and in not returning the vehicle to the complainants along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to hand over the vehicle in good condition without noise in the engine and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainants along with cost of the proceedings.

Sum and substance of the complaint:-

 

The 1st complainant who is deceased now was the owner of the vehicle Innova 25.G bearing Registration No.TN.07 BK 5623 which was insured with IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company for a period 25.01.2011 to 24.01.2012 under Policy No.TIT.91000958 and the vehicle was a T board vehicle.  On 13.01.2012 from Chennai to Kodaikanal the vehicle travelled with passengers and met with an accident on account of which front side mirror, Head light, Radiator, A/C Compression and batter were damaged.  Complaint was registered Veppur Police Station in Cuddalore District in Crime No.2/2012.  No passengers sustained injury in the accident.  Vehicle was towed to the opposite parties workshop.  The damages was estimated at Rs.3,50,000/- and the insurance authorities directed the complainant to produce FIR and the complainants paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as advance to the opposite party who assured that the vehicle would be ready within 15 to 20 days.  When the complainant visited the workshop they wanted the complainant to take the vehicle with some noise coming from the engine.  When refused they stated that the noise would reduce after 20,000 km.  When the complainant wanted the said observation in writing they denied to give it and hence the vehicle was not taken delivery from the opposite party till today.  The complainant being dependent upon the earnings from the vehicle suffered heavy loss and thus filed the complaint to direct the opposite party to hand over the vehicle in good condition without noise in the engine and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainants along with cost of the proceedings.

Defence of the opposite party:-

The opposite party though admitted the ownership of the vehicle, the accident and entrustment of the vehicle with them for repairs denied that they did not assure that they would hand over the vehicle within 15 to 20 days.  The allegation that the opposite party requested the complainant to take the vehicle with noise was also denied.  No delay was caused by the opposite party in delivering in the vehicle. When the vehicle was brought to the service centre on 17.01.2012 a check list was prepared on 27.01.2012 and a provisional estimate for a sum of Rs.2,70,096/- was given to the complainant.  With the consent of the complainant, dismantling work was started.  After dismantling a supplement estimation for a sum of Rs.4,62,047/- was prepared.  Both the estimations have been checked and approved by the complainant and advised the opposite party to proceed with the repair work.  Thereafter, approval from the Insurer was also obtained before starting the repairs works.  The vehicle was fully repaired and kept in ready status which was informed to the complainant on 30.04.2012 itself.  A bill for a sum of Rs.1,00,382/- towards balance outstanding after adjusting the insurance claim was also furnished to the complainant.  Unfortunately, the complainant without any valid reason expressed his inability to pay the outstanding bill and sought for some time to settle the amount.  At this juncture, the complainant was informed that he may have to pay a sum of Rs.100/- being parking charges per day which was accepted by the complainant. Complainant neither settled the outstanding bill nor came forward to take delivery of the vehicle.  Instead, the complainant has chosen to issue a notice dated 01.05.2012 vicariously. A reply dated 21.05.2012 was issued by the opposite party.  All the repair works have been attended to and completed properly.  In fact a Specialist Mechanic from the workshop at Hyderabad was brought to attend the Engine Repairs of the vehicle and the Engine has been perfectly made ready.  Therefore, the allegation that there was a noise in the Engine and the complainant was asked to take delivery of the vehicle with the said noise and promised that the noise in the engine would get reduced if the vehicle runs for 20,000km is absolutely false.  The fact that the vehicle has been kept in “ready status” by 30.04.2012 was well known to the opposite party.  In such circumstances, absolutely there was no reason for the complainant for not taking delivery of the vehicle after payment of the outstanding bill.  Except the notice dated 01.05.2012 issued by the complainant there was no oral or written complaints by the complainant regarding any dissatisfaction on the repair works.  The complainant who alleged “Deficiency in service” has not explained specifically the manner in which the Service Deficiency was caused.  When was no repairs work of the vehicle goes unsolved, it is not open for the complainant to allege that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

On the side of complainants proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on their side.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. 

Points for consideration:-

 

Whether the act of opposite party in not servicing the vehicle properly and in not returning the vehicle to the complainant after carrying out repairs amounts to deficiency in service?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of her allegations; 

Certificate of Registration of the car was marked as Ex.A1;

Permit of the car was marked as Ex.A2;

Copy of insurance policy for the vehicle was marked as Ex.A3;

Certificate issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Veppur was marked as Ex.A4;

Copy of C.S.R. was marked as Ex.A5;

Receipt issued by the opposite party dated 03.02.2012 was marked as Ex.A6;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 01.05.2012 was marked as Ex.A7;

Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery  was marked as Ex.A8;

On the side of oppostie party the following documents were filed in support of their defence;

Provisional Estimate was marked as Ex.B1;

Supplement Estimate  was marked as Ex.B2;

Tax – Invoice was marked as Ex.B3;

Copy of Email was marked as Ex.B4;

Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 30.04.2012 was marked as Ex.B5;

It is represented by the counsel appearing for complainants that their written arguments may be treated as oral arguments.  Inspite of sufficient opportunities the opposite party did not appear for adducing oral arguments nor filing written arguments.

The crux of the written arguments filed by the complainants is that the vehicle suffered with damage due to an accident and was entrusted to the opposite party for carrying out repairs.  However, as it was not properly done and the vehicle was not delivered to the complainants till today the present complaint was filed for causing delay in carrying out the repairs and in delivering the vehicle.  

No written arguments was filed by the opposite party.  The crux of the version advanced by the opposite party is that they had carried out the repairs properly and at no point of time the complainants expressed displeasure over the repair works done by them.  Further in the proof affidavit they have stated that there is a balance outstanding amount of Rs.1,00,382/-to be paid by the complainants as the balance repairs charges of Rs.4,26,259/- has been paid by way of insurance claim.  Thus they had stated that inspite of requesting the complainants to come and take delivery of the vehicle the complainant did not turn up and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.

It is seen that the complainants to prove that the defects were not properly carried out by the opposite party had sought for inspection of the vehicle by way of CMP.No.04/2013 and the same has been allowed on 23.06.2014.  However, the vehicle was not taken for inspection and no inspection was carried out on the vehicle.  Further, the said interim order was challenged by way of RP before the SCDRC.  However, the same got dismissed for non-prosecution.  In such circumstances, this commission could not hold that the complainant had proved the allegations by way of sufficient evidence that the opposite party had not carried out the repair works properly.  When it is the specific defence taken by the opposite party that they were ready to hand over the vehicle to the complainants after the repairs were carried out but the complainants to avoid the balance payment of Rs.1,00,382/- did not come forward to take the vehicle no materials were produced by the complainants to show that the opposite party denied the complainants for taking delivery of the vehicle.  it is seen as per Ex.B5 the letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant it has been stated that “work has completed and the vehicle is ready for delivery.  We also request you to come and take the delivery as we communicated”. For the said exhibit the complainants did not produce any contra evidence nor denied the same his pleadings.  Thus we come to a conclusion that the opposite party was always ready to give delivery of the vehicle but it is the complainants who was reluctant to take delivery of the vehicle.  By the above observation we could hold that both the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party as to not carrying out the repairs properly and not delivering the vehicle was not proved by the complainant by any admissible evidence. Thus the point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite party and as against the complainant.

Point No.2:-

As we have held above that the complainants had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, they are not entitled to any reliefs as claimed in the complaint from the opposite party.  Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost. 

  Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28th day of November 2022.

                                                                                                           

   Sd/-                                                                                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed by the complainants:-

 

Ex.A1 Certificate of Registration. Xerox

Ex.A2 Permit of the car. Xerox

Ex.A3 Copy of insurance policy for the vehicle. Xerox

Ex.A4 Certificate issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Veppur. Xerox

Ex.A5 Copy of C.S.R. Xerox

Ex.A6 Receipt issued by the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A7 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party Xerox

Ex.A8 Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1 Provisional Estimate. Xerox

Ex.B2 Supplement Estimate  . Xerox

Ex.B3 Tax – Invoice Xerox

Ex.B4 Copy of email. Xerox

Ex.B5 Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Xerox

 

 

 

   Sd/-                                                                                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                   PRESIDENT