Date of filing: 27.04.2017 Date of disposal: 27.07.2018
Complainant: Yogendra Bhagat, S/o. Late Horil Bhagat, resident of ST No. 33, Quarter No. 11/5A, Amladahi Phulijhuri, Chittaranjan, District: Burdwan, Pin – 713 331.
- V E R S U S -
Opposite Party: 1. Jayshree Autotrade Pvt. Ltd., A Unit of Jayshree Toyota, Represented by its Director, having its office at Banskopa, NH 2, PO: Rajbandh, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 212.
2. The Director, Jayshree Autotrade Pvt. Ltd., Asansol Unit, having its office at Jayshree Toyota, NH 2, Jublee More, beside Jublee Petrol Pump, Kanye Para, Asansole, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 341.
Proforma Opposite Party: 3. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director, having its office at 10th Floor, Canberra Tower, U. B. City, No. 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560 001.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1& 2: None (ex parte).
Appeared for the Proforma Opposite Party No. 3: Ld. Advocate, Saugata Dey.
J U D G E M E N T
The brief fact is that the complainant purchased a four wheeler from the OP-2, i.e. the Director, Jayshree Autotrade Pvt. Ltd., Asansol Unit on 15.05.2015 being Model No. TOYOTA ETIOS VX (NKG15R-AEMGKX), Engine No. is 2NR-D091781 & Chasis No. is MBJB29BTX0009876 with three years of warranty. After taking delivery of the said vehicle he got registered of his vehicle from the Registration bearing No. WB-38AF/4013 and thereafter the complainant also insured his vehicle and begun to use the same for his personal work.
The complainant also submits that after one year the vehicle started problem (heating after 10 minutes if AC was switched on in standing position and the coolant level increased and decreased abnormally) and as such the complainant made contact with OP-2 and OP-2 by issuing a job sheet bearing job order No. GSJ 16-00331 (p), dated 08.06.2016 kept the vehicle before them for 2 days but as they failed to repair the vehicle suggested the complainant for going before the OP-1 at Durgapur.
After that the complainant went to OP-1 and handed over the vehicle on 14.06.2016. OP-1 issued one job sheet vide No. GSJ16-01281 and after 12 days on 26.06.2016 delivered the vehicle after charging Rs. 6,852=00 by issuing one Tax Invoice No. TAX 16-01889 (Credit).
The complainant further submits that he is a bonafide consumer of the Ops and OP-1 in one hand extract money in spite of knowing that the vehicle is under warranty coverage and on the other hand OP-1 did not refund the money to the complainant.
During the pendency of the present claim application the complainant has filed an amendment petition for enhancement the claim amount as the complainant again compelled to visit OP-1 for further repairing the same and the present Forum has been pleased to allow the prayer of the complainant, accordingly the claim amount enhanced Rs. 9,997=00 instead of Rs. 6,852=00.
The cause of action arose on and from 26.06.2016 when OP-1 charged the complainant Rs. 6,852=00 as repairing cost.
After filing the present application, the complainant sent proper notice to the Ops and the Ops also received the same. But only OP-3 as a proforma defendant appeared and contested in this case by filing written version but none appeared on behalf of the OP-1&2 and accordingly it is fixed for ex parte against them.
Now points for consideration:-
How far claimant is able to prove his claim by evidence along with documents?
To prove the allegation against the Ops, the complainant has filed his evidence-in-chief through affidavit along with documents. To prove himself as bonafide consumer of the aforesaid vehicle he produced Tax Invoice dated 13.05.2015 which reveals that he is a consumer as per provision of C. P. Act, 1986.
As per evidence of the complainant it reveals that the complainant purchased the vehicle for his personal use and during the period of his personal use there is some problem started. Then he at first went to OP-2 from where he purchased the vehicle for repairing and at that time OP-2 received the car by issuing job sheet and kept the said vehicle for two days and thereafter returned the same to the complainant with a direction to produce the said vehicle before OP-1 i.e. Jayshree Autotrade Pvt. Ltd., A Unit of Jayshree Toyota, Represented by its Director, having its office at Banskopa, NH 2, PO: Rajbandh, District: Burdwan after receiving Rs. 350=00 as labour charge.
Thereafter, the complainant visited OP-1 and handed over the vehicle on 16.06.2016 and as such OP-1 also issued a job sheet bearing No. GSJ16-01281 in favour of the complainant and after twelve days i.e. on 26.06.2016 it delivered the car to the complainant after repairing and they charged Rs. 6,852=00 after issuing a Tax Invoice No. TAX 16-01889.
The complainant is able to produce the said document from where it goes to show that OP-1 charged Rs. 6,852=00 during warranty period and at the same time complainant is also produced the warranty card which shows that OP-1 received the repairing charge form the complainant within warranty period.
The allegation for which the complainant has been compelled to file the present claim application i.e. OP-1 received Rs. 9,997=00 from the complainant within the warranty period and which according to law is not permitted to receive the said amount form the complainant. According to documents warranty period covers within a period of 36 months from the date of purchase or 1,00,000 kms whichever comes first, when the OP-1 received the charge form the complainant on 26.06.2016 and 20.05.2017 it appears from the warranty card that warranty period is still continued then i.e. it was within 36 months from the date of purchase and it was also within 1,00,000 kms.
Accordingly it appears when the vehicle created disturbance and the petitioner compelled to visit OP-2 then the mileage was 7971 kms. And as per evidence of the complainant when he again compelled to visit OP-1 then the mileage was 8168 kms.
Now the ld. Lawyer for the complainant submits at the time of argument that the complainant is not entitled to get back labour charge and for which he never claims Rs. 350/- which he had paid to OP-2 for the first time and now here it again appears that the complainant produced the documents which shows that he had paid Rs. 6,852=71 as repairing charges to the OP-1 for the first time out of which Rs. 5,264.00 had paid as labour charges and at the same time it further appears from another document that he paid Rs. 5,701.00 as repairing charges to OP-1 out of which Rs. 2,245.00 as paid towards labour charges.
Both the documents are sufficient to prove that the complainant being a bonafide consumer entitled to get compensation as per claim. But now it is to be considered regarding quantum of money which he entitled as because both the documents showed that he paid Rs. 5,264=00 and Rs. 2,245=00 as labour charges out of total amount of Rs. 6852.71 and Rs. 5,701 respectively.
So as per submission of Ld. Lawyer the labour charges Rs. 5,264=00 and Rs. 2,245=00 should be deducted, that means complainant is entitled to get Rs. 6852.71 – Rs. 5264.00 = 1588.71 for the first document and also entitled to get Rs. 5701.00 – Rs. 2245.00 = Rs. 3456.00 for the second documents. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 3,000=00 for mental pain, agony and harassment along with Rs. 2,000=00 as litigation cost.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 65/2017 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OP-1&2 with cost and dismissed on contest against the Proforma OP-3 without any cost with a direction that both the Ops have to pay equal compensation amount of Rs. 1588.71 + Rs. 3456.00 = Rs. 5044.71 to the complainant as awarded by the present Forum within 45 days from the date of passing of this award, failing which, it will carry penal interest @7% per annum for default period and the OP-1 is also directed to pay Rs. 3,000=00 as mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000=00 as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of passing of this award, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to put the award in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Nivedita Ghosh) DCDRF, Burdwan
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
