BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 30/11/2011

Date of Order : 27/08/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 667/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. To put it shortly, the case of the complainant is as follows :-

On 12-07-2011, the complainant purchased a mini van from the opposite party with the financial assistance of Bank of India, Kaloor branch. On 02-08-2011, the same was met with an accident and the same was taken to the opposite party for its repairs. The opposite party agreed to redeliver the vehicle within a month, since they had to obtain spare parts for repairs. However, the opposite party failed to redeliver the vehicle as promised and took 3 months to redeliver the vehicle to the complainant. The vehicle was used for carrying school going students. The complainant had to hire another vehicle to carry the students to the school by spending Rs. 20,000/- per month. Moreover, he could not remit 3 instalments of the loan which comes to Rs. 17,238/- due to the delay in delivery and non-plying of the vehicle. The opposite party charged a sum of Rs. 39,000/- for its repairs since. So, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to pay Rs. 40,000/- towards rent of the vehicle, Rs. 11,700/- towards 2 months' loan instalments and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards further expense to repair the vehicle. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite party is as follows :

The complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The vehicle was brought to the workshop of the opposite party on 02-08-2011 for carrying out certain accident repairs. At the time of entrustment of the vehicle, the complainant had been specifically informed by the opposite party that only after getting clearance from the insurance company would necessary spare parts be obtained from the manufacturer and that the repairs to the vehicle could be completed only thereupon. Accordingly, the opposite party issued an estimate on 04-08-2011 to be submitted it before the insurance company. On getting necessary clearance from the surveyor of the insurance company, the opposite party had placed order for the spare parts with the manufacturer on 23-08-2011 and the same had been acknowledged by the manufacturer on 01-09-2011. The opposite party received the spare parts on 14-09-2011. The opposite party had completed the repairs and redelivered the vehicle to the complainant on 28-12-2011. The opposite party is not liable for the additional expenses incurred by the complainant. At no point of time had the opposite party ever stated that the vehicle would be returned within one month's time. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the opposite party.

4. The only point that comes up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 66,700/- from the opposite party or not?

5. The parties are in consensus on the following issues :-

1. The complainant purchased a mini van from the opposite party on 12-07-2011.

2. The vehicle met with an accident on 02-08-2011.

3. The vehicle was brought to the work shop of the opposite party for its repairs on the date of accident itself.

4. The surveyor of the insurance company examined the vehicle and prepared survey report on 06-08-2011.

5. The opposite party received the spare parts of the vehicle from the manufacturer on 14-09-2011.

6. Finally, the opposite party redelivered the vehicle after its repairs on 28-12-2011.

6. According to the complainant, he had to suffer lot of inconveniences and financial loss due to the delay in redelivery of the vehicle to him. Further, it is stated that he is to spend Rs. 15,000/- more for the further repairing of the vehicle. On the contrary, the opposite party contended that there is no delay or laches on the part of the opposite party for the delay in delivery of the vehicle. The learned counsel contended that since there is no deficiency in service, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union bank of India Vs. M/s. Seppo Rally OY & Ors. III (1999) CPJ 10 (SC).

7. Admittedly, the opposite party had received the necessary spare parts from the manufacturer on 14-09-2011 to repair the vehicle of the complainant. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party redelivered the vehicle after its repairs only on 28-12-2011. DW1, the employee of the opposite party stated that the delay of 2 months for the redelivery of the vehicle had been caused due to the renovation of the workshop of the opposite party. However, intangible the deposition of DW1 is substantially conclusive to explain the delay of 2 months complained of by the complainant and unexplained for by the opposite party which has to be accounted for. Anything less than compensation for the same will not make good the agony of the complainant, for which he had unnecessarily and explainably been put to. On a considered view of the entire case and evidence before us, we are of the view that a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- would be adequate to abate the agony of the complainant. However, claim for the same be taller.

8. The claim of the complainant that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- has to be expended further to repair the vehicle finds no ground before this Forum for want of evidence. Rejected hence.

9. Apart from the averment in the version, there is nothing on record to substantiate that the complainant is a consumer. Be that as it may, would it be out of place to think that a man in need would plea before the rich. Would it be impatient to resolve the aggrieved should seek justice before Authority. Would it be conceivable that the less proven would seek assistance of the better.

10. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for the reasons stated above.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till realisation.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of August 2012

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========