BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 91/2019 Filed on 02/04/2019

ORDER DATED: 13/07/2022

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

The complainant has entered into a contract with IISU, an ISRO unit, Vattiyootkavu for supply of Tourist Taxi vehicles.  The complainant is also a professional taxi driver and acting as the driver of the car as a self-employee.  The complainant purchased a brand new Maruti Swift Tour S Diesel vehicle on 05/05/2018 from the show room of the opposite party at Pattom.  Registration No of the vehicle is KL-01-CF-8768.  The complainant paid a total amount of Rs.6,42,200/- as ex-showroom price, paid another sum of Rs.29,620/- towards the charge of bumper to bumper insurance of the vehicle, and also paid other amounts towards road tax and registration charges.  Altogether the complainant paid an amount of Rs.7,10,000/- for the above vehicle.   On 19/12/2018 the above vehicle met with an accident at Vilappilsala.  Due to the said accident, damages sustained to the front bumper at its left side, at the left mudguard, at front left door, at left side running board, at front left side body and back bumper.  Vehicle was brought to the service centre of the opposite party on 20/12/2018 and after complying with the formalities, the opposite party has started repairing of the vehicle.  The opposite party assured that the above damaged portions of the vehicle will be replaced with new pieces and the vehicle will be handed over to the complainant after curing all defects within 3 days since all the damaged parts can be replaced with new ones.  On all days the complainant contacted the opposite party directly and through mobile phone and enquired about the progress of work.  On almost all days the service assistant of the opposite party,  customer care Manager and the General Manager assured the complainant that the vehicle will be immediately delivered to the complainant without any more delay.  But all the above said assurances of the opposite party and their personnel became in vain.  Without any valid reason the opposite party failed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant till 18/01/2019, even though the repairs could be done and the vehicle could be delivered within 3 days.  Thus there is deficiency of service, gross negligence, inordinate delay and willful violation of the work agreement on the part of opposite party.  As per the contract entered with ISRO the complainant is using his Swift car for trips varying from 150 kms to 300 kms per day.  ISRO is paying charges at the rate of Rs.14/- per kilometer.  Due to the above said damages sustained to the vehicle of the complainant,  the complainant hired another vehicle from one Ramachandran for the service of ISRO.  From 24/12/2018 to 19/01/2019 the complainant has provided another vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL01BP 209 to ISRO for running 5302 Kms instead the vehicle of the complainant.  For the above said use, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.74,228/- towards taxi fare and also paid an amount of Rs.7,500/- towards waiting charges to him for the entire period.  Thus the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,05,128/- from the opposite party.  Demanding the said amount on 30/01/2019, the complainant caused to issue an Advocate Notice to the opposite party.  The opposite party received the Advocate notice but no reply was sent nor was any amount paid.  Hence the complaint. 

After accepting the notice the opposite party was absent.  Hence opposite party set ex parte.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents.  Ext.A1 to A8 marked.

Issues to be considered are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the cost and relief?

Issues No.1&2:- We perused relevant documents on record.  As per Ext.A1 is the copy of Accident repair job slip sheet of the vehicle.  Ext.A2 is the letter dated 11/02/2019 issued from ISRO to confirm whether willing to undertake the work up   to 31/03/2020.  The complainant had entered into a contract with IISU an ISRO unit for the supply of Tourist Taxi Vehicles.  Ext.A3 is the bill dated 08/02/2019 for an amount of Rs.69,884/- for taxi fare charge for the month of January 2019 in the name of complainant.  According to the complainant the opposite party failed to deliver the vehicle to him till 18/01/2019 and he had hired another vehicle for the service of ISRO.  Ext.A4 and A5 shows that tourist taxi is engaged from 20/12/2018 to 31/01/2019 by IISU for official purpose and shows the name of driver as Rajendran.  Ext.A6 is the legal notice sent to opposite party.  Complainant stated that no reply was sent by the opposite party.  The complainant is working as a professional taxi driver and acting as the driver of the car as a self employee. 

In this case opposite party was set ex parte opposite party has not produced any evidence to disprove the case of complainant.

In view of the above discussions we find that the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

In the result complaint allowed.  We directed the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as the compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as the cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization.            

  A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 13^th day of July,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 91/2019

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS: 

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

PRESIDENT