DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of November 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing: 29.05.2020 CC/54/2020
Jathish .P.M,
S/o late Maniyan,
Say Nivas,
Pulinirakkod,
Peruvemb. P.O,Palakkad.
(By Adv. G. Abhilash ) - Complainant
Vs
1. INDUS MOTORS Co-Pvt. Ltd
MG Road, Opposite Cochin Shipyard
Thevara, Cochin,Kerala-682005
Represented by Its managing Director
2. Branch manager
INDUS MOTOR Co-Pvt.Ltd
Door. No.6/366 & 367, NH 47
Koottupatha, Chandranagar Post,
Palakkad – 678 007
(By Adv.Kamesh. J ) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
1.Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
Complainant entrusted his vehicle Maruti Balino Delta. P with Register No. KL- 09- AL-9536 with the opposite parties who are the authorised sales and service agents of vehicles manufactured by Maruthi Suzuki Company on 10.01.20 for full service. The opposite party assured him to return the vehicle on the same day itself after competing full service. At that time, they made him sign in some blank papers. The 2nd opposite party’s staffs after servicing the vehicle returned it on the same day. They bought the vehicle infront of complainant’s shop and received the bill amount. The complainant could not check the vehicle at that time as he was busy with customers in his shop.
Thereafter when he checked the vehicle, he found that the opposite parties did not do water service and other services and the rear wheel was puncture. Eventhough he tried to contact the opposite parties, they did not respond properly. Later, he got the vehicle repaired with the help of another workshop and he had spent more than two and half hours in road during night. He sent a complaint to the opposite parties through mail. The 2nd opposite party asked the complainant to bring his vehicle to the workshop for doing further service. The 2nd opposite party admitted that due to shortage of staff, they could not service the complainant’s vehicle properly. But the complainant was not ready to entrust the vehicle with the opposite party and he send a mail to the opposite party stating all these facts. But they did not give any reply.
The opposite party charged Rs. 5702/- without doing any service in the vehicle. Further they delivered the vehicle after making the rear wheel puncture. The above conduct of the opposite parties had caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. It amounts to Deficiency in service on their part.
So this complainant is filed to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 5702/- with interest at 10% from 10.01.2020 and to pay an amount of Rs. 400/-. being the cost of repairing the defective tyre and to pay Rs. 50,000/-as compensation for the financial loss and Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.
2. Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.
3. The opposite parties contentions in the versions are as follows:-
They admit that the complainant entrusted his vehicle with them for full service on 10.01.2020. They also admit that vehicle was delivered to him on the same day itself after doing full service and received the bill amount from the complainant. They deny all other allegations in the complaint.
They contend that when the vehicle was delivered to the complainant after servicing, the checked it and was satisfied with the works of the opposite party. He made payment only after that. The tyre was not defective at the time of delivery; otherwise they could not have drove it to the complainant’s shop. The opposite party asked him to bring the vehicle for service again as they got a complaint from the customer. It is an usual practice and it is not because the opposite parties admit that they did not properly service the complainant’s vehicle.
The complainant’s vehicle was serviced properly and they replaced all the defective parts and charged only nominal amount. There is no Deficiency in service on their part and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. From the pleadings of both parties the following points arise for
consideration.
1. Whether there is any Deficiency in Service on the part of opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
3. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence and ExhibitsA1to A6 were marked. (A6 is a series of 4 photographs and one CD). Marking of A4 and A5 are objected to on the ground that they are computer generated documents unaccompanied by Sec.65. B certification under Indian Evidence Act. The complainant was examined as PW1.
The Opposite parties also filed their proof affidavit and Exhibit B1 series (a)to (f) marked from their side. The works manager of 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and evidence closed. Opposite parties filed notes of arguments. Heard.
6. Point No: 1
The complainant’s grievance is to the effect that on 10.01.2020, he entrusted his vehicle Maruthi Bolero with the opposite party for full service. They returned the vehicle after service on the same day itself. At the time of delivery, the complainant could not check the vehicle as he was busy in his shop. Later on, when he checked it at the time of going home, he found that the opposite party did not do water service and other services and its rear wheel was puncture. Eventhough he contacted the opposite party for service, they did not respond properly. Finally he called a mechanic from another workshop and got it repaired. The complainant further contends that he sent mail to the opposite party stating these facts. But they did not give any reply. The opposite parties charged Rs.5702/-without properly servicing the vehicle.
7. The opposite parties contention is that they have properly serviced the vehicle and changed the defective parts. The wheel was not puncture at the time of delivery; otherwise they could not have drove the vehicle to complainant’s shop. Complainant checked the vehicle and paid the bill amount only after completely satisfied with their work. They have charged only nominal amount and there is no Deficiency in service on their part.
8. The complainant produced the Tax invoice dated 10.01.2020 issued by the opposite parties for receipt of Rs. 5702/- as service charge which is marked as Exhibit A2 and Exhibit A3. (From Exhibit A2, it can be seen that the opposite parties have carried out Body washing, wheel Alignment (4 head), alloy wheel balancing (4 wheels) and charged for that.)
Exhibit A6 is a series of 4 photographs of the car and Exhibit A7 (objected) is the CD. From the photographs, it is not possible to identify the defect in the wheel or other allegations regarding the service of the vehicle. The photographs did not show any date. So the allegations regarding improper service, and puncture of wheel is not proved.
9. The complainant’s another grievance is regarding the non- responding attitude of the opposite party. He contends that when he found the defect in the wheel, he contacted the opposite parties for service; but they did not respond properly. Further he send mail communication to opposite party describing the issues, But they did not send any reply to it.
10. Complainant produced the e-mail communications between the parties which is marked as Exhibit A4 and Exhibit A5.
1st opposite party’s Works manager was examined as DW1. During cross examination he admitted that they have not given written reply to the mails, but informed the head office. But they did not produce any documents to show that.
In DW1’s words “ Exhibit A4 \v written reply sImSp¯n«nÃ. Head Office te¡v Adnbn¨n«pv. Adnbn¨Xv F¶mWv F¶v IrXyambn AdnbnÃ. ]t£ AXn\v tcJbpv. AXv tImSXn ap¼msI lmPcm¡nbn«nÃ. CXv kw_Ôn¨v ]cmXn¡mc\v bmsXmê tcJbpw sImSp¯n«nÃ. F´v \S]SnbmWv Head Office FSp¡m³ ]dªXv F¶Xnëw Hê tcJbpw ChnsS lmPcm¡nbn«nÃ.
(Deposition page No. 2 - 1st Pargraph)
The opposite parties are bound to attend the grievance of the complainant if any defects occur after the service of the vehicle.
DW1 also admitted this (Deposition page No:3 2nd paragraph) kÀÆokv Ignªv ]cmXn Adnbn¨v Ignªm t]mbn t\m¡m³ Rm³ _m²yØ\mWv. Fs´¦nepw defect Ds¦n free Bbn sNbvXv sImSpçw. tPmen¡mêsS shortage Dmbn ImWpw. A§sbmsW¦n Nnet¸mÄ At¶ Znhkw ]mÀ«nsb Adnbn¨v ]ntä Znhkw sImSpçw.
11. So from the documents and from the deposition of DW1, it can be seen that the opposite parties did not produce any evidence to show that they have properly attended the grievance of the complainant when the complainant had a problem after service. It is a Deficiency in service on their part. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
12. Points 2&3
As per the findings in point No:1, it is clear that the opposite parties failed to attend the issue in the complainant’s vehicle after service. So they have to compensate the complainant for that. The complainant suffered mental agony and inconvenience because of the non- response from the part of opposite parties and had to resort to other source for resolving the issue. Further the conduct of the opposite parties caused the filing of this compliant incurring financial and time loss to him. So the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for that.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part.
We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a compensation of Rs. 3500/- for their Deficiency in service, Rs. 2500/-for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5000/- as cost of the litigation.
The opposite party shall comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof to the complainant till date of final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 28 th day of November 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Cover issued by Maruthi Suzuki with sticker of Indus Motors.
Ext.A2 – Job card Retail- tax invoice issued by the opposite party dated .
10.01.2020
Ext.A3 – Job card Retail- tax invoice issued by the opposite party dated .
10.01.2020
Ext. A4(objected) – Copy of E-mail send by the complainant to the opposite party
dated: 15.10.2020
Ext.A5(objected) - Copy of E-mail send by the complainant to the opposite party
dated : 14.01.2020.
Ext. A6 - (Series) Photos and CD of complainant’s vehicle.
Documents marked from the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 –(Series a to f ) Bills and Job cards issued by the opposite party.
Witness examined from the side of complainant
PWI –- Jatheesh . P.M, Complainant
Witness examined from the side of the opposite party
DW1- Latheesh Kumar- Works Manager, 2nd Opposite party.
Cost . 5000/- (Five thousand)
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the
proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection
(Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they be
weeded out.
