Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/11/2013

D.YESA - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Garage - Opp.Party(s)

W.Thobias Arul

28 Nov 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 07.01.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 28.11.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.11/2013

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

                                 

D. Yesa,

S/o. Late. Mr. Daniel,

No.1/10, Peters Colony,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.                                                        .. Complainant.                                                

 

                                                                                          ..Versus..

 

1. M/s. India Garage,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.184, Anna Road,

Chennai – 600 006.

 

2. M/s. VST Auto Agency Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.279, Velachery Main Road,

Chennai – 600 042.

 

3. M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,

Rep. by its Deputy Manager,

Legal Department,

Mahindra Towers,

No.13, Worli Road,  

Mumbai – 400 018.                                                ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                 :  Mr. W. Thobias Arul

Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2 :  M/s. S. Raghunathan & others

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party        :  M/s. Shivakumar & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to replace the worn out parts of Air Conditioning System with new parts without any charges and deliver the vehicle to the complainant, to refund a sum of Rs.12,624/- being paid towards repairing charges of the Air Conditioner System and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he has purchased Mahindra Zylo E4 model bearing Registration No.TN 06 2603 from the 1^st opposite party on 15.04.2009.  The complainant submits that from the very beginning, the functioning of the Air Conditioner of the complainant’s vehicle was improper.  The complainant has handed over his vehicle to the 1^st opposite party on 02.08.2010 for due service.    The mechanic stated that the Air Conditioner of the vehicle was totally collapsed and handed over the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party, workshop at Velachery on 04.08.2010.  The Service Engineer reported that the default was only due to rat bite.   The complainant submits that after paying a sum of Rs.5,648/- he had taken delivery of the vehicle.  But the complainant was very much disappointed over the Air conditioner system since the rear portion of the roof Air Condition was not functioning.  The said fact also, informed to the 2^nd opposite party’s Service Engineer and the complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop on 23.12.2010.    The 2^nd opposite party after receiving a sum of Rs.12,624/- on 24.12.2010 delivered the vehicle without rectifying the fault of rear portion of the roof Air Conditioning system. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:10.02.2011 to the opposite parties and the opposite parties sent an evasive reply dated:21.02.2011 and again the complainant sent rejoinder notice dated:23.03.2011.  But the opposite parties has not rectified the rear portion of the roof Air Conditioning system of the vehicle.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the allegation of non-functioning of Air Conditioning system at the inception is totally false.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the Air Conditioning system of the car was damaged by rodent by parking the car not in safety places.   The complainant also has not taken any positive simple remedy of keeping country tobacco inside the bonnet.  Since the damage caused by rodents and the warranty is not covered, the 1^st opposite party collected a sum of Rs.5,648/- towards service charges and the cost of the  components.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that without replacing the damaged parts of the Air Conditioning system of the vehicle, it cannot be rectified.   Hence, for purchasing the spare parts and servicing the vehicle a sum of Rs.12,624/- was collected for the second time and due job card and cash memo issued.  There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in servicing the Air Conditioning system of the vehicle and the complaint against the opposite parties 1 & 2 is liable to be dismissed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  3^rd opposite party is as follows:

The 3^rd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 3^rd opposite party states that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 15.04.2009 which requires mandatory servicing and replacement of specified components namely air filter, fuel filter etc at recommended intervals.   Further the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty alone utility service will be rendered only for 2 years or 50,000 kms.   The 3^rd opposite party states that the utility vehicle in question, after the purchase, reported for the 1^st time on 24.07.2009 at 3,219 kms. to the 1^st opposite party for accidental repairs when necessary repairs were done on paid basis.  The utility service at 11,060 kms. on 22.04.2010 was performed at free of cost and at that time also no issue with respect to Air Conditioner.   On 03.08.2010, when the vehicle plied for 14,900 kms. the complainant came for changing the mirror on cost basis.  On 23.12.2010 at 18,624 kms., the complainant brought the vehicle with the complaint of rear roof A/c air vent not working, central lock siren sound sometime not working, all power window glass moving slow, ignition key inside lock sometime struck up, coolant low, fix rear RHS power window button pad & to provide rear RHS tail lamp & wheel cap when 20,000 kms., mechanical service was carried out and repaired by changing the 2^nd wheel cover, tail lamp, coolant, brake shoes, brake pad, brake spray, instrument panel, etc. on costs basis.  The complainant was also satisfied with the job done by the workshop and has acknowledged the same by signing the satisfactory voucher after payment of Rs.12,624/-.  After 23.12.2010, the complainant has not reported his vehicle to any of the Authorized Service Centre of the opposite party till 20.09.2011.   The 3^rd opposite party states that due reply to the legal notice in detail with correct facts and reason for rejection of claim was given on 21.02.2011.   The 3^rd opposite party states that the complainant has not kept his vehicle properly in a safe position which led to rat bite and damage of the Air Conditioning units which has been attended and rectified satisfactorily towards the exceptional service provided by the workshop. The 3^rd opposite party states that the complainant’s claim is exorbitant and imaginary and there is no basis for that.   Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite party.   Proof affidavit of the 3^rd opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 is marked on the side of the 3^rd opposite party. 

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant entitled to get replacement of the Air Conditioning system with new parts as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get return of a sum of Rs.12,624/- paid towards repairing the Air Conditioner system of the vehicle as prayed for?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments. Heard the Counsels also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he has purchased Mahindra Zylo E4 model bearing Registration No.TN 06 2603 from the 1^st opposite party on 15.04.2009.  Ex.A1 is the copy of invoice issued by the 1^st opposite party.  Ex.A2 is the copy of Certificate of Registration of the vehicle.    Further the contention of the complainant is that from the very beginning, the functioning of the Air Conditioner of the complainant’s vehicle was improper.  The complainant has handed over his vehicle to the 1^st opposite party on 02.08.2010 for due service.  The mechanic stated that the Air Conditioner of the vehicle was totally collapsed and handed over the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party, workshop at Velachery on 04.08.2010 as per Ex.A3.  The Service Engineer reported that the default was only due to rat bite.   

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that after paying a sum of Rs.5,648/- vide Ex.A4 the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle.  But the complainant was very much disappointed over the Air conditioner system since the rear portion of the roof Air Condition was not functioning.  The said fact also, informed to the 2^nd opposite party’s Service Engineer and the complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop on 23.12.2010.  The Service Engineer specifically informed about the fault of the Air Conditioner as per Ex.A5, Job card.  The 2^nd opposite party after receiving a sum of Rs.12,624/- on 24.12.2010 delivered the vehicle without rectifying the fault of rear portion of the roof Air Conditioning system. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:10.02.2011 to the opposite parties as per Ex.A7 claiming to rectify the rear portion of the roof Air Condition and to refund a sum of Rs.5,648/- for which, the opposite parties sent an evasive reply dated:21.02.2011 as per Ex.A9 for which, the complainant sent rejoinder notice dated:23.03.2011 as per Ex.A10.  Even after repeated requests and demands the opposite parties has not rectified the rear portion of the roof Air Conditioning system of the vehicle.  Hence, the complainant is compelled to file this case claiming refund of the repairing charges of Rs.12,624/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with cost of Rs.10,000/-. 

8.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 would contend that the allegation of non-functioning of Air Conditioning system at the inception is totally false.    Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the Air Conditioning system of the car was damaged by rodent by parking the car not in safety places.  The complainant also has not taken any positive simple remedy of keeping country tobacco inside the bonnet.  Since the damage caused by rodents and the warranty is not covered, the 1^st opposite party collected a sum of Rs.5,648/- towards service charges and the cost of the  components.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that without replacing the damaged parts of the Air Conditioning system of the vehicle, it cannot be rectified.   Hence, for purchasing the spare parts and servicing the vehicle a sum of Rs.12,624/- was collected for the second time and due job card and cash memo issued.  There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in servicing the Air Conditioning system of the vehicle.  Since there is no warranty covered for such damage due to rodent etc, the due charges was levied and it shall not cause any mental agony to the complainant. 

9.     The contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that admittedly, the complainant purchased the vehicle on 15.04.2009 which requires mandatory servicing and replacement of specified components namely air filter, fuel filter etc at recommended intervals.   Further the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty alone utility service will be rendered only for 2 years or 50,000 kms.   The complainant ought to have followed the preventive maintenance services in accordance to the owner manual.   Further the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that the utility vehicle in question, after the purchase, reported for the 1^st time on 24.07.2009 at 3,219 kms. to the 1^st opposite party for accidental repairs when necessary repairs were done on paid basis.   The utility service at 11,060 kms. on 22.04.2010 was performed at free of cost and at that time also no issue with respect to Air Conditioner.   On 03.08.2010, when the vehicle plied for 14,900 kms. the complainant came for changing the mirror on cost basis.   On 23.12.2010 at 18,624 kms., the complainant brought the vehicle with the complaint of rear roof A/c air vent not working, central lock siren sound sometime not working, all power window glass moving slow, ignition key inside lock sometime struck up, coolant low, fix rear RHS power window button pad & to provide rear RHS tail lamp & wheel cap when 20,000 kms., mechanical service was carried out and repaired by changing the 2^nd wheel cover, tail lamp, coolant, brake shoes, brake pad, brake spray, instrument panel, etc. on costs basis.  The complainant was also satisfied with the job done by the workshop and has acknowledged the same by signing the satisfactory voucher after payment of Rs.12,624/-.  After 23.12.2010, the complainant has not reported his vehicle to any of the Authorized Service Centre of the opposite party till 20.09.2011.   Hence, the question of deficiency in service against 3^rd opposite party never arise.   

10.    Further the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that due reply to the legal notice in detail with correct facts and reason for rejection of claim was given on 21.02.2011.   Further the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that the complainant has not kept his vehicle properly in a safe position which led to rat bite and damage of the Air Conditioning units which has been attended and rectified satisfactorily towards the exceptional service provided by the workshop.   There cannot be any manufacturing defect or deficiency in service in replacement of repair of the Air Conditioner.   Further the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that the complainant’s claim is exorbitant and imaginary and there is no basis for that.   The rodent bite cannot be compensated and thus there is no deficiency in service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 28^th day of November 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	15.04.2009	Copy of invoice issued by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A2	20.04.2009	Copy of Form Certificate of Registration of the vehicle
Ex.A3	04.08.2010	Copy of Job Order issued by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A4	10.08.2010	Copy of Cash Memo issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A5	23.12.2010	Copy of Job Order issued by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A6	24.12.2010	Copy of Tax Invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A7	10.02.2011	Copy of legal notice of the complainant to the opposite parties
Ex.A8	15.02.2011	Copy of acknowledgements from the opposite parties for the receipt of the legal notice
Ex.A9	21.02.2011	Copy of reply notice by the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A10	23.03.2011	Copy of rejoinder to reply notice of the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A11	24.03.2011	Copy of reply notice by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A12	20.09.2011	Copy of Job order of the 1st opposite party
Ex.A13	13.12.2011	Copy of Job order of the 1st opposite party
Ex.A14	22.11.2012	Copy of Job order of the 1st opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 & 2 SIDE DOCUMENTS:- NIL

3^RD OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1		Copy of the relevant extract of the terms and conditions & limitations of the warranty
Ex.B2		Copy of the extract showing free services of the utility vehicle
Ex.B3	04.08.2010	Copy of the Job Order
Ex.B4	10.08.2010	Copy of Tax Cash Memo
Ex.B5	23.12.2010	Copy of the Job Order
Ex.B6	24.12.2010	Copy of Tax Invoice
Ex.B7	24.12.2010	Copy of Satisfactory Voucher
Ex.B8	20.09.2011	Copy of the Job Order
Ex.B9	13.12.2011	Copy of the Job Order

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT