O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
This complaint is filed by the father of the complainant being the power of attorney holder of the complainant.
2. The brief facts of this complaint is as follows:- Complainant purchased a Maruti Eeco 5 Star A.C car for Rs.3,93,500/- on 21.08.2013 from the opposite party. At the time of purchase certain accessories are also ordered which are necessary for its proper utility and safety which includes crash guard, wheel cover, Mud Flap etc. and directed the opposite party to deliver the car after fixing the accessories. Accordingly, they have fixed the accessories and delivered the car. On delivery, the complainant found that the crash guard is over size. As the crash guard is found oversize the complainant enquired whether the same is suitable for the car. They said that it is the apt and matching crash guard for the said car. On the way, the complainant found that there is some noise from the front portion of the vehicle which seems to be caused due to the loosing of the bolt of some fittings. Thereafter during the services complainant told about the said noise. But on every occasions they told that they have cured the said defect. But in fact, the said noise was not stopped even after the services. At last, the complainant put the vehicle in a slanding position and inspected the vehicle and found that the body portion to which the crash guard was fixed by the bolts was broken and realized that the noise is of the said reason. The body portion where the crash guard was fixed is not strong enough to hold the heavy crash guard weighing 16.5 kgs. Since the body portion was broken the A.C condenser coil and radiator were also affected. Then it was communicated to the opposite party. They asked to bring the vehicle to the show room and if it is brought they will manage to weld the broken body part. But the complainant did not brought the vehicle to the opposite party and the complainant himself had removed the crash guard from the vehicle as it was impossible to drive the vehicle with the crash guard. The said problem caused severe damages to the vehicle. The said problem cannot becured by a simple welding. Further for welding the said part, radiator, A.C condenser coil etc. are to be removed from the body which requires huge amount. The said problems occurred due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite party, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of a total amount of Rs.75,000/- under various heads from the opposite party.
3. Opposite party filed their version with the following main contentions: Opposite party admitted the sale of the car and at the time of selling complainant asked for fitting some accessories including a crash guard. Accordingly the car was delivered after fitting the accessories as desired by the complainant. The allegation that the crash guard is over size is false. The complainant himself selected the crash guard. The complainant never raised a complaint of noise to the opposite party. If, any such complaint was brought to the notice of the opposite party the same would have been found a place in the job card. The vehicle was brought to the opposite party for 2nd free service on 07.02.2014 and on that date the noise of the crash guard was noted as the said complaint was brought to the notice of the opposite party and the said complaint was rectified by the opposite party. Such noise could not be caused due to the fitting of the crash guard. But in this case, the crash guard might have hit somewhere and the body portion to which the crash guard was fixed was broken and the crash guard was removed on 14.04.2014 as per the request of the complainant. No loss or no mental agony has been caused to the complainant due to any of the acts of the opposite party. Opposite party had done good service to the complainant and complainant took the vehicle with full satisfaction on all services. Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7. After closure of evidence, counsels for the complainant filed his argument note and the parties were heard.
6. The Point:- The main allegation of the complainant is that the crash guard supplied and fitted in his car by the opposite party is over size and is not matching to the car. Further it was fitted negligently and as a result there was noise and the body portion where the crash guard fitted was broken also. Complaints in this regard to the opposite party is not attended or rectified by the opposite party. For the rectification of the said complaint, huge amount is required and much repairing works are necessary. Such problems are occurred due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite party and hence opposite party are liable to the complainant. So the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the power of attorney holder of the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 7 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced are marked as Exts.A1 to A7. Ext.A1 is the power of attorney executed in favour of PW1. Ext.A2 is a cash receipt dated 23.08.2013 for Rs.2,93,810/- issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3 is another bill dated 21.08.2013 issued by the opposite party showing the price of the extra fittings purchased by the complainant. Ext.A4 is a receipt dated 09.09.2013 for Rs.560/- issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A5 is the job card dated 07.02.2014 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A6 is a receipt dated 27.08.2013 for Rs.12,300/- issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A7 is the delivery pass dated 26.08.2013 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant.
8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that they have done proper services to the complainant perfectly in all respect without any negligence or laches. The allegation that they have supplied an over size crash guard is baseless as the crash guard in question was selected by the complainant himself and the allegation that the noise is due to the improper fitting of the crash guard is also false. The complainant never brought to the notice of the opposite party about any complaints as alleged by the complainant. The braking of the body parts is not due to the improper fitting of the crash guard but it may be due to the hitting of the crash guard to any objects. Thus they argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, they prays for dismissing the complaint.
9. Though the opposite party has raised the above contentions they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. But they have cross-examined PW1.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the sale of the car and its accessories and its fitting by the opposite party. The only dispute is with regard to the crash guard. According to the complainant it was over size and its fitting was improper which caused noise as well as the braking of body portion where it was fixed and the said complaints are not attended by the opposite party in spite of the complainant’s request for the same. But according to the opposite party, the said allegations are false and the said allegations are not proved by the complainant with cogent evidence.
11. In view of the contentions of the parties, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has not adduced any cogent evidence for substantiating his allegations connected with the crash guard. None of the exhibits marked for the complainant did not shows anything in favour of the complainant’s allegations. Mere allegation alone is not sufficient for allowing a complaint. In the absence of any evidence supporting the complainant’s allegations, we cannot find any deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party and hence this complaint is found not allowable.
12. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of November, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : P.J. Thomas
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Power of attorney executed by the complainant in favour
of P.J. Thomas
A2 : Cash receipt dated 23.08.2013 for Rs.2,93,810/- issued by
the opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A3 : Bill dated 21.08.2013 for Rs.3,93,500/- issued by the
opposite party to the complainant.
A4 : Receipt dated 09.09.2013 for Rs.560/- issued by the
opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A5 : Job card dated 07.02.2014 issued by the opposite party to
the complainant.
A6 : Receipt dated 27.08.2013 for Rs.12,300/- issued by the
opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A7 : Delivery pass dated 26.08.2013 issued by the opposite
party in the name of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) P.J. Thomas, Peniyathe House,
Puramattom, Vennikulam.P.O.,
Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.
(2) Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd., Thoppil Complex,
Mallappally West.P.O., Pathanamthitta Dist.,
Pin – 689 585.
(3) The Stock File.
