Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

155/2007

Bindhu Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Service Concorde Motos Ltd., & anotherq - Opp.Party(s)

V Balaji

24 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                       Date of Filing  : 20.03.2007

                                                                          Date of Order : 24.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.155/2007

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                                 

Mrs. Bindhu Mohan,

W/o. Mohan Panickar,

No.30/2 J Yotsna 2^nd Street,

Padmavathy Nagar,

Velachery,

Chennai – 600 042.                                                      .. Complainant.                                               

 

           ..Versus..

 

1. The Manager (Service),

Concorde Motors (India) Ltd.,

No.79-81, Ambattur Industrial Estate,

Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 058.

 

2. The Manager,

Concorde Motor (India) Ltd.,

No.39, Velacheri Main Road,

Guindy,

Chennai – 600 032.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                 :  M/s. V. Balaji

Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2 :  M/s. V. Annalakshmi & another

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to deliver the Fiat Palio bearing Registration No.TN 22 AA 2979 without any further demand of any charges for beleaguered repairs and whose worthiness be confirmed and ascertained only after driving it, to repay a sum of Rs.31,334/- charges paid for the vehicle with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 15.11.2006 to till the date of repayment and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that her husband contacted to give Fiat Palio car bearing Registration No.TN 22 AA 2979 the 2^nd opposite party for repairs who directed him to contact the 1^st opposite party.  On 01.11.2016, for fault in alternator belt and oil leakage from the upper part of the engine, the 2^nd opposite party after due repair on payment of Rs.16,334/- delivered the car on 14.11.2006.   But the oil leakage problem was not attended and was continued.   Further the complainant submits that on the very next day of delivery of the vehicle, on 15.11.2006, there is a hardness of clutch and pressure gauge light was on during warm up time in morning.  On the advice of the 1^st opposite party Service Manager, that the engine compression was responsible for such oil leakage the complainant’s husband was informed that minimum expenses will be Rs.30,000/- and maximum will be Rs.60,000/- was for due rectification.   The complainant’s husband was also paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as advance.   After repeated calls and personal visits, the opposite parties informed that the vehicle was ready for delivery.  The complainant’s husband was requested to pay a sum of Rs.63,000/- for such service charges.   The complainant asked the opposite party for taking delivery that the opposite party shall make a test drive in the presence of the complainant’s husband before such payment.   Since the opposite party repeatedly insisted for payment and not made suitable arrangement for test drive, the complainant filed this case.  

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite parties state that on 15.11.2006, the complainant approached the opposite parties with a new complaint of hardness of clutch and pressure gauge light which is no way connected with the service related to 14.11.2006.    Further the opposite parties state that the vehicle was duly repaired and the complainant was informed that the vehicle was ready for delivery and the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.48,437/- towards the balance of the invoice amount and also a sum of Rs.100/- per day for parking charges from 11.12.2006.   As per the R.P. order, the complainant was permitted to deposit a sum of Rs.73,437/- to the credit of the complainant wherein the opposite party was permitted to withdraw Rs.48,437/-.   Further the opposite parties state that the vehicle was ready for delivery after due rectification of defects. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 are marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  Court Exhibits Ex.C1 is marked.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get delivery of the Fiat Palio bearing Registration No.TN 22 AA 2979 after confirming the road worthiness as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.31,334/- with interest as prayed for?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service with cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments. Heard the Counsels also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  Admittedly, the complainant contacted to give Fiat Palio car bearing Registration No.TN 22 AA 2979 the 2^nd opposite party for repairs who directed him to contact the 1^st opposite party.  On 01.11.2016, for fault in alternator belt and oil leakage from the upper part of the engine the 2^nd opposite party after due repair on payment of Rs.16,334/- delivered the car on 14.11.2006 as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2.   But the oil leakage problem was not attended and was continued.   Further the contention of the complainant is that on the very next day of delivery of the vehicle, on 15.11.2006, there is a hardness of clutch and pressure gauge light was on during warm up time in morning.  On the advice of the 1^st opposite party Service Manager that the engine compression was responsible for such oil leakage as per Ex.A3, job card the complainant’s husband was informed that minimum expenses will be Rs.30,000/- and maximum will be Rs.60,000/- was for due rectification.   The complainant’s husband was also paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as advance.    After repeated calls and personal visits, the opposite parties informed that the vehicle was ready for delivery.  The complainant’s husband was requested to pay a sum of Rs.63,000/- for such service charges.   The complainant asked the opposite party for taking delivery that the opposite party shall make a test drive in the presence of the complainant’s husband before such payment.   Since the opposite party repeatedly insisted for payment and not made suitable arrangement for test drive, the complainant was constrained to file this case.   

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the complainant filed CMP No.112/2007 under section 13 3 (b) of Consumer Protection Act requesting the Forum to permit to deposit the amount and direct the opposite parties to handover the car with a permission to test drive for its road worthiness which was duly ordered. 

The order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in R.P. No.32/2007 preferred against C.M.P. No.112/2007 in C.C. No.155/2007 reads as follows:

“This Commission by order dated:04.02.2008 allowed the Revision Petition filed by the complainant directing the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.73,347/- to the credit of the complaint instead of an FDR in favour of the opposite parties and on such deposit the vehicle shall be made available for test drive by an expert, automobile engineer and on the expert automobile engineer certifying the vehicle to be road worthy and rid of the original problem for which the vehicle was entrusted to the opposite parties the opposite parties would be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.48,437/- and the balance shall be in the court deposit till disposal of the complaint”.

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the vehicle was taken to MIT, Chennai for expert opinion and Ex.C1, report reads as follows:-

“3. To assess the Lube Oil Consumption and fuel burning properties, Smoke Test, as well as, Emission Tests were conducted on the vehicle and it was found that there was abnormal smoke coming out of the vehicle.

“5. It was found that there was some problem in the fuel supply system which affects the normal running of the vehicle”.

8.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties contended that on 15.11.2006, the complainant approached the opposite parties with a new complaint of hardness of clutch and pressure gauge light which is no way connected with the service related to 14.11.2006.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A3, it is seen that while the car was produced for repair works on 14.11.2006, there was oil leakage problem also.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the vehicle was duly repaired and the complainant was informed that the vehicle was ready for delivery as per Ex.B4 and the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.48,437/- towards the balance of the invoice amount and also a sum of Rs.100/- per day for parking charges from 11.12.2006.   As per the R.P. order, the complainant was permitted to deposit a sum of Rs.73,437/- to the credit of the complainant wherein the opposite party was permitted to withdraw Rs.48,437/-.   Hence, it is very clear that the delay in payment cannot be raised by the opposite parties.   

9.     Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the vehicle was ready for delivery after due rectification of defects.    But it is very clear that the opposite parties has not come forward to have a test drive to find out the defect with an expert Automobile Engineer with due certificate proves the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties shall deliver the vehicle to the complainant after due test drive by an Expert Automobile Engineer certifying that the vehicle is in a road worthy condition and get rid of the original problems and the opposite parties 1 & 2 shall withdraw a sum of Rs.48,437/- out of the deposit made by the complainant and the opposite parties 1 & 2 shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to deliver the vehicle to the complainant after due test drive by an Expert Automobile Engineer certifying that the vehicle is in a road worthy condition and get rid of the original problems and the opposite parties shall withdraw a sum of Rs.48,437/- (Rupees Forty eight thousand four hundred and thirty seven only) out of the deposit made by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of October 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	01.11.2006	Copy of receipt
Ex.A2	14.11.2006	Copy of receipt
Ex.A3	15.11.2006	Copy of Job slip
Ex.A4	29.11.2006	Copy of receipt
Ex.A5	19.11.2006	Copy of letter of the 1st opposite party
Ex.A6	22.11.2006	Copy of complainant’s letter
Ex.A7	27.11.2006	Copy of letter of the 1st opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS: 

Ex.B1	15.11.2006	Copy of Job Card
Ex.B2	15.11.2006	Copy of Job Slip
Ex.B3	11.12.2006	Copy of Invoice
Ex.B4	27.12.2006	Copy of letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant
Ex.B5	12.01.2007	Copy of letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant
Ex.B6	21.03.2007	Copy of letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant
Ex.B7	29.03.2007	Copy of letter sent by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite parties
Ex.B8		Copy of photo of the terms and conditions
Ex.B9		Copy of Terms and conditions of the opposite parties

 

Court Exhibits:-

Ex.C1

30.03.2009

MIT Report

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT