BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 612/2017
1. | The Proprietor, Car Clinic, Maruthi Authorized Service Station, (A Category Mass), No.8, Gokulam, 4th Stage, Industrial Layout, Mysuru. (By Sri Dilip Kumar) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Sri J. Srinivasan, S/o Late B. Jambulingam, No.52, 6th Cross, Verna Layout, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, Dasarahalli, Bellary Road, Bengaluru 560 024. (By Sri J. Srinivsan) | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | Regional Office (South-II), Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., 204, 2nd Floor, Embassy Clinic, Vittal Malya Road, Bangalore 560 001. | |
3. | Managing Director & CEO, Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., Head Office, No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunnj, New Delhi 110 070. (R-2 & 3 served absent) | |
ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.03.02.2017 passed in CC.No.307/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore which directed them to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. along with litigation expeses.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that the complainant alleged deficiency in service in delay in delivering the vehicle after repair. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay the above said amount. Appellant submits that the complaint is barred by time. The complainant brought the vehicle to their service station on 02.01.2012 for the purpose of repair, whereas the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission on 13.05.2015, hence, there is a delay in filing the complaint and barred by time. Inspite of that the District Commission allowed the complaint. Further, the complainant has not produced any materials to show that he suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. Inspite of that the District Commission without considering the non-production of the documents had allowed the complaint which is against the Law. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint by allowing the appeal.
3. The appellant not present since from admission of the appeal. On the other hand, the respondent has filed written arguments and submits that his vehicle met with an accident and after the accident, the vehicle was left for repair with the Opposite Party No.1 on 02.01.2012. At the time of leaving the vehicle, the Opposite Party No.1 assured to deliver the vehicle after repair within 3-4 months and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards repair whereas the Opposite Party No.1 not returned the vehicle inspite of repeated requests and also as per the assured period. The complainant constrained to engage another vehicle for his usage and suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.4,03,590/-. Subsequently, the Opposite Parties have delivered the vehicle after repair only in the year 2015 after a lapse of 23 months, hence, without any reasons, the Opposite Parties have kept the vehicle with their custody and submits that the District Commission has rightly directed the appellant to pay the said amount and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the Order and the documents produced before the District Commission, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that on 02.01.2012 the appellant has accepted the vehicle of the complainant for repair and also assured to deliver the vehicle after repair within 3-4 months. But we noticed on 15.11.2013 the Opposite Party handed over the vehicle after repair. We noticed that there is a delay of 23 months in delivering the vehicle. The appellant has not explained either before the District Commission or before this Commission why there is delay in handing over the vehicle to the complainant. We are of the opinion that if any vehicle was tendered for repair, the vehicle has put to repair and returned to the customer as early as possible. We do not find any valid reasons to keep the vehicle with their custody. Apart from that the appellant has not appeared before this Commission to explain the reason for not handing over the vehicle as soon as the repair was done. The District Commission has rightly appreciated the averments and affidavit of the complainant along with documents and allowed the complaint. We do not find any merits in the appeal. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
