SRI. ROY PAUL : PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite party to pay sum of Rs.1,45,800/- on various head to the complainant for the deficiency of service.
The case of the complainant in brief :
On 15/3/16 the complainant's vehicle Hyundai grand i10 bearing reg.No.KL 13AD 2288 met with an accident and taken to 1st opposite party for repairing. The 1st opposite party could not repair the vehicle within the time promised to him. Thereafter the complainant contacted the customer care of Hyundai and 1st opposite party informed the complainant that the vehicle is ready for delivery on 30/4/16. When the complainant visited the 1st opposite party for taking delivery, it could understand that 1st opposite party had carried out the work hastily without care ,perfection and due deligence. The work done was completely defective and not up to the mark. Painting is also very poor in quality and perfection. But the opposite parties were not ready to rectify the mistakes committed by them. The value of the car is considerably lowered. The 1st opposite party has charged a sum of Rs.137842/- from the complainant. But the complainant was constrained to take delivery of the vehicle in a disatisfied condition on 20/5/16. Thereafter the complainant had spend another sum of Rs.20500/- also for repairing and painting. Due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party the complainant has suffered much hardships mental agony loss of time and money. 1st opposite party is the authorised service centre of 2nd opposite party. Hence the complaint.
The opposite parties entered appearance before the Fora and submitted their written versions separetly . 1st opposite party contended that there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as alleged in the complaint. It was informed to the complainant that before taking delivery it has to be informed to the opposie party in advance for which they have to water service the vehicle. But the complainant and his friends without informing the 1st opposite party as stated above, approached the opposite party for taking delivery. So the vehicle was in uncleaned condition. That may be the reason for this frivilous .complaint. The 1st opposite party water serviced the vehicle and delivered to the complainant with full satisfaction of him. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost of the opposite party. The 2nd opposite party contended that the allegations availed against them in the complaint are absolutely false and baseless. There is no consumer relationships between complainant and 2nd opposite party. The relationship between 1st and 2nd opposite party is principal to principal basis. So the 2nd opposite party has no role or responsibility in this matter.. According to the knowledge of 2nd opposite party, the 1st opposite party has perfectly provided service to the complainant wihtout any latches. So the complaint may be dismissed with cost and compensatory cost.
On the basis of the rival contentions in the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration
1 .Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs
3. Reliefs and costs.
The evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW 1 and Ext.A1 to A11 documents marked on his side. No oral evidence from the side of the opposite partie. One document was marked as Ext.B1.
Issue No1.
The complainant adduced evidence by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the versions . Exts A1 to A11 documents also marked to substantiate his case. According to him the vehicle entrusted for repair on 15/3/16 was delivered him only on 20/5/16 . The work done by 1st opposite party was defective, inferior in quality and reckless. The painting work was also not satisfactory. The 2nd opposite party also failed to cure the above deformaties. There is deficiency of service on the part of both the opposite parties. The complainant has spent another sum of Rs.20800/- also to rectify the defective work done by the opposite party. Thus the actual expenditure incurred for the work is Rs.158642/-. The opposite parties may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.145800/- to the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite parties. Both the opposite parties absolutely failed even to cross examine the complainant as PW1 . 2nd opposite party has produced one documents which was marked as Ext.B1. Heard both sides.
On perusal of the pleadings ,documents, evidence and arguments from both sides we are of the opinion that as per Ext.A3 and A4 documents the complainant expressed his disatisfaction about the repair work done by the 1st opposite party. The Ext.A9 survey report also mentioned about the inferior quality of the work. It is in evident that the complainant has spent another sum of Rs.20800/- also to rectify the defective work done by the opposite party. We the Fora considered that Ext.A10 and A11 bills for the said purpose. Though the 2nd opposite party contended that they are not responsible for the misdeeds of their dealer by relying on Exts.B1 dealership agreement, we hold that as per Ext.A3 reply notice , 2nd opposite party. assured about the prompt service from 1st opposite party dealer. Ext,B1 also clearly mentioned about the dominent power and control of 2nd opposite party over 1st oposite party, the authorised dealer . So it was the duty and responsibility of 2nd opposite party to see the work done by 1st opposte party is prompt and satisfactory. It is pertinent to note that none of the opposite parties cared even to cross examine the complainant in box. In the absence of any rebuttal /contra evidence from the side of opposoite parties , we are of the considered view that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of both the opposite parties. Hence the issue No.1 found against the opposite parties and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2&3
As discussed above , we hold that even after the repair work done from 1st opposite party, the complainant has spent another sum of Rs.20800/- also for rectification of defect in the work as per Ext.A10&A11 documents. Ext.A9 expert report with photosgraphs also shows the same. It is in evident that due to the deficiency of service on the part of 1st opposite party, the complainant has suffered much hardships mental agony,inconvenience loss of money and time. From the forgoing discussions and findings, we are of the view that the 1st opposite party is liable to refund a sum of Rs.20800/-(Rupees twenty thousand eight hundred only) to the complainant and opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost also to the complainant . Thus the Issue Nos 2 & 3 are also answered accordingly
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 1st opposite party to refund Rs.20800/-(Rupees twenty thousand eight hundred only) to the complainant and opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally directed to pay sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and along with Rs.2000/- as litigation cost also to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the order. Failing which the above said sum of Rs. 20800/-(Rupees twenty thousand eight hundred only) and Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) will carry interest @10% per annum from the date of order till realization. The complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Exts
A1- clarification letter by e mail to OP.1
A2- email send to customer care
A3- email acknowledgment
A4-copy of repair order
A5-cash invoice
A6-25/5/16-lawyer notice
A7-postal receipts
A8-AD card
A9-Inspection report
A10&A11-cash bills
B1- dealership agreement
PW1-A.K.Arsal- complainant
Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva /Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
