IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 30th day of April, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 229/2023 (Filed on 24-07-2023)
Complainant : Akhil Mathew,
S/o. Mathew,
Proprietor,
St. Thomas Transport Company,
XIV/65 B, Poozhikkalayil House,
Kidangoor P.O. Kottayam – 686572
(Adv. Avaneesh V.N.)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : Jayaraj Trucks and Buses Private Limited,
Rep. by its Manager,
Madhurai – Dindigal,
National Highway,
Kattappalli Nagar, Thenur,
Samayamallur P.O.
Madurai, Thamilnadu – 625402.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant, proprietor of ST.Thomas Transport Company in Kidangoor, owns a Bharath Benz Truck bearing registration No. KL-35-J-6784, for his livelihood. The opposite party, an authorized service centre for Bharath Benz Truck, handled repairs when the vehicle was involved in an accident near Sugakya Trust of Mottampatti on 1/7/2022. No spot survey was conducted. Subsequently, the vehicle was surveyed by the surveyor on 9/7/2022, 10/7/2022 and 26/8/2022.
The opposite party provided an estimate of Rs.13,93,359/- for repairs, requiring the complainant to pay Rs. 6 lakhs as advance due to a lack of cashless repair tie-up with the insurance company. The complainant, trusting the opposite party’s advice, paid the advance believing the entire chassis needed replacement, which was later confirmed by the opposite party.
Upon completion of repairs on 30/8/2022, the opposite party charged Rs.13,71,743/-. The complainant paid the balance amount on 5-9-2022 and the vehicle along with salvage was taken from the opposite party. However, it was later revealed that the replacement lacked proper authorization from the R.T.O, resulting in complications with the insurance claim. After that the complainant requested the opposite party to issue form No. 22F, i.e. the report of the repairer regarding chassis change, and accordingly they sent it.
The insurance company eventually approved only Rs.8,80,884/-. The complainant received Rs. 50,000/- as salvage value but incurred a loss of Rs.1,500/- towards the no- claim bonus. Despite the invoice and estimate indicating a chassis price of Rs. 4,69,707/-, the insurance company only approved Rs.2,83,385/- for the new chassis. When enquired, opposite party said that the surveyor’s recommendation for chassis replacement. However, it was discovered that the surveyor had only suggested changing the chassis frame, not the entire chassis, this fact was concealed by the opposite party.
It is alleged in the complaint this deliberate misinformation aimed to minimize effort and to get profit by selling a new chassis, resulting in significant financial loss for the complainant. Therefore, the complainant seeks reimbursement of Rs.1,36,322/- i.e. the difference between the paid amount and salvage value for the additional expenses incurred. Additionally, the opposite party’s failure to comply with chassis replacement formalities caused further hardship. The complainant prayed for reimbursement of Rs.1,36,322/-, along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.15,000/- for legal costs, citing the opposite party’s failure to disclose vital information, resulting in financial losses and unfair trade practices.
Upon notice from this Commission opposite party appeared before this Commission and filed version contenting as follows:
The opposite party is an official dealer of Bharat Benz Trucks and Buses. The Autoban Trucking Pvt. Ltd., the Kerala dealer, contacted the opposite party and the vehicle of the complainant was shifted to the workshop of the opposite party in Madurai on 02.07.2022. Job slip was issued to the complainant and he agreed to all the terms and conditions and authorized the opposite party to execute the job. The job was executed in consultation and approval of the complainant. The Surveyor deputed by the Insurance Company of the complainant inspected the vehicle at the work shop of the opposite party and Surveyor was appraised of the damages to the truck and works to be done. On 30.08.2022, the repair work was completed and an invoice of Rs.13,71,745/- for the same was issued to the complainant. The vehicle was delivered along with the salvage to the complainant after completion of the repair works.
The averment in the complaint that the opposite party informed the complainant that the surveyor directed and consented to the change of chassis is false. The opposite party had earlier informed the complainant that chassis is badly damaged and it is better to replace the chassis for better performance instead of changing the damaged parts which the complainant was amenable to. The Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company informed opposite party that the approval had only been given for damaged spares and the opposite party brought the same to the complainant’s attention through the complainant’s Manager named Mr.Bivin who was corresponding with the opposite party on behalf of the complainant and informed him that only the damaged chassis parts will be covered by the Insurance company and asked whether to replace the chassis or not. The Manager of the complainant company replied the opposite party to replace the chassis and that he will take up the matter with the insurance office. As per the direction given by the Manager of the complainant, opposite party replaced the chassis. Thereafter opposite party had sent the supplementary estimate and Form 22F to the complainant company by courier.
The complainant was informed well in advance that the RTO clearance is necessary for the replacement of chassis and that it was the responsibility of the complainant to obtain the necessary clearance. It was for the complainant to take necessary steps to obtain sanction for the change of chassis from the concerned RTO and the opposite party was always ready to provide the documents on its part for the said purpose. As and when requested by the complainant, Form 22F was issued to the complainant by the opposite party without any delay. There was no delay or negligence on the part of the opposite party.
The opposite party never concealed about the chassis replacement and the matter was properly communicated with the Manager of the complainant company. The opposite party had no intention to get profit by selling a new chassis. The allegation that the complainant suffered huge financial loss is not correct. The opposite party had complied with all formalities for replacement of the chassis and for the repairment of the vehicle. The opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as alleged by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party.
All transactions between the complainant and the opposite party happened in Madurai and no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission and therefore this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the complaint.
Complainant examined as PW1 and exhibit A1 to A 6 were marked from his side. No documentary or oral evidence is adduced by the opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence of record we would like to consider the following points:
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- If so what are the reliefs and cost?
Point No.1
The specific case of the complainant is that Bharath Benz truck bearing registration number KL-35-J 6784 was owned by him and the opposite party, an authorized service centre for Bharath Benz Truck carried out the repairs when the vehicle was involved in an accident near Sugakya Trust of Mottampatti on 1/7/2022.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite party stating that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission and this Commission have no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
As per section 34(2) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 a complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the complainant resides or personally works for gain. Here in case on hand the complainant is residing at Kidangoor which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Thus we are of the opinion that this Commission have ample jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complaint is maintainable before this Commission.
Point Nos.2 and 3
According to the complainant the opposite party prepared an estimate for an amount of Rs.13,93,359. Exhibit A1 is the tax invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 30-8-2022. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party replaced the chassis of the vehicle misleading him that the surveyor of the insurance company had given approval for the same. On going through the Exhibit A2 which is the report of the Surveyor of the insurance company we can see that he had approved Rs.8,27,654/- for the repairing works of the vehicle. It is further proved by the Exhibit A2 survey report that the surveyor had given approval for Rs.26,554/- for the chassis assembly repairing and Rs.2,83,385/- for being the price of the frame. The specific allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party had received Rs.4,69,707/- being the price of the chassis. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party has not denied the allegation of the complainant that they had received Rs.4,69,707/- from the complainant for the price of the chassis. Though the complainant was examined as PW1 the opposite party had not put any question regarding the price of the chassis. From this it is evident that the opposite party had received Rs.4,69,707/-from the complainant being price of the chassis.
Another contention of the complainant is that the opposite party replaced the chassis without the consent of the complainant. According to the opposite party they had informed Mr.Bivin who is the Manager of the complainant that the surveyor had approved only the damaged chassis parts and the chassis is replaced with a new one with the consent of the Manager of the complainant. However the opposite party did not produce any evidence to prove that they had communicated it to the Manager of the complainant and as per the instruction given by the Manager of the complainant they replaced the chassis. In the absence of the evidence to prove that the opposite party had replaced the chassis with the consent of the Manager of the complainant we cannot accept the contention of the opposite party. Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service by replacing the chassis of the vehicle without the consent of the surveyor of the insurance company or the complainant. As discussed earlier the opposite party has received Rs.4,69,707/- from the complainant for the price of the chassis.
Admittedly the complainant got Rs.50,000 towards the salvage value. Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to refund the differences between the amount approved by the surveyor and received by the opposite party from the complainant for the price of the chassis. Thus the opposite party is liable to refund Rs.1,36,322/- (i.e. 469707-283385-50000). Receiving an amount of Rs.1,36,322 by misleading the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
Another contention of the complainant is that the opposite party did not comply with the formalities for replacement of the chassis. Though the opposite party contended that as and when requested by the complainant the opposite party issued form 22F to the complainant without any delay. The opposite party did not disclose the date on which they had issued form 22 F to the complainant. During the cross examination, PW1 deposed before the Commission that as per his direction the said form was filed on 15-12-2022. It is pertinent to note that the repair work was completed on 30-8-2022 and the opposite party has received the entire amount of Rs.13,23,359/- on the same day itself. The form 22 FF which is highly necessary for intimating the change of chassis to the RTO was issued only on 15-12-2022. The opposite party has not given any explanation for the delay caused to the issuance of the form 22F to the complainant. Due to the delay caused on the part of the opposite party the complainant faced much hardship to avail the insurance claim. Without entering the chassis number in the registration certificate the complainant was not able to ply the vehicle. So the delay occurred on the part of the opposite party had caused much financial loss to the complainant for which the opposite party is liable to compensate. In the light of above discussions we are of the opinion that this complaint is to be allowed and we pass the following Order.
- We here by direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,36,322/ (Rupees One lakh thirty six thousand three hundred and twenty two only) to the complainant with an interest at the rate of 9% interest from 24/7/2023 i.e. date on which this complaint is filed till realization.
- We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as the cost of this litigation
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of April, 2024
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Sworn statement from the side of complainant
Pw1 – Akhil Mathew
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of invoice dtd.30-08-2022 by opposite party
A2 – Copy of motor survey report dtd.27-11-2022
A3 – Copy of e-mails
A4 – Copy of certificate dtd.15-12-2022
A5 – Form 22F signed by the opposite party
A6 – Statement of account in the name of St.Thomas Transport Company by HDFC
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
