CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
CC No.81/08
Monday the 28th day of February, 2011
Petitioner : Binumon V
Now working as Admi nistrator
Labour India Public School,
Marangattupally, Pala,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Jittu George Mathew)
Vs.
Opposite party : Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd
Near St.Thomas Church, MC Road,
S.H.Mount PO, Kottayam
Rep.by its Manager.
2) Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd
Rep. by General Manager(Service)
Kuttukaran Centre, Mamangalam,
Cochin.
(Adv. B.Ashok
3) Maruthi Udyog Ltd
Rep.by The Chief General Manager
Maruthi Udyog Ltd, Gurgaon.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows:-
The complainant purchased an ALTO LX Car and the said car met with an accident o 14/04/2007 and was severely damaged. On 20/04/07 the car was transferred to the authorized workshop of the third apposite party. The first opposite party during the time of taking estimate assured the complainant that he has to pay maximum Rs.10,000/- only and the balance amount will be covered by the insurance. The complainant also instructed the first opposite party to change the existing red colour of the car to cherry red colour. On 27-07-07 as informed by the first opposite party the complainant with his friend reached the authorized service center of the third opposite party managed by the second opposite party for receiving his vehicle. Then the first opposite party told the complainant that he has to pay Rs. 27,000/- and he was forced to pay the same. After receiving the car the complaint found certain problems with the repaired car that the break light was not working, back left side hand grip was not fitted, lid of the petrol tank was not in place etc. When the complainant pointed out these problems, the first opposite party said some lame excuses to solve the same.
The first opposite party told the complainant that one hundred and seventeen parts of the car is been replaced with new parts and provided a bill. The complainant demanded the old parts but the first opposite party was not ready to provide the same. On 27/07/07 the complainant lodged a complaint before the S.I of Police for recovering the above said old parts. The complainant took the car home. On his way, near to the steering wheel and inside the board of the car the wire got shorted and burned, thick dense smoke arose inside the car and the complainant stopped the car and ran out of the car. On 28/07/07, the complainant noticed some more problems with the car. The complainant took the vehicle again to first opposite party for repairing. The same day itself it was repaired and delivered but after two days some problems were noticed. Noticing these problems the complainant took the car to AVG Motors, another authorized workshop of third opposite party and they repaired the same and issued a bill for Rs.3078/-.
The complainant alleged that the acts of the opposite parties amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant further alleged that due to the unfair trade practice of the first opposite party the vehicle was totally damaged and unfit for use as a vehicle and he is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with 12% interest. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming Rs. 2,00,000/- with 12% for the loss and damages, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- towards litigation cost.
Notice was served to all the opposite parties. First and second opposite parties filed version together and the third opposite party filed version separately. The first and second opposite party’s version came with the following main contention.
i) Vehicle KL-10B-2253 met with a major accident on 14-04-07 near Idukki damtop in which one of the passengers was died and two were seriously injured. The said vehicle was brought to the workshop and at the time of taking estimate informed him that a preliminary estimate will be forwarded to the insurance company before fully dismantling the vehicle. The complainant was also informed that he has to pay the compulsory deductable amount and the applicable depreciation amount at the time of taking delivery. It was also informed that the exact amount payable can be informed at the final stage of work since it is a major accident repair work. The averment that the complainant instructed the first opposite party to change the existing red colour of the car to cherry red colour is not correct.
ii) The vehicle was made ready for delivery on 29-6-2007 and the complainant was informed the same but the complainant came to take delivery only on 27/07/07 at about 6.30pm. The first opposite party promised to deliver the car the next day since they required sometime to reinspect the vehicle but insisted for delivery then itself and noticed minor complaints which were rectified before delivery.
iii) The replaced parts were shifted to the Central Godown of the opposite party since complainant has not turned up to take the vehicle for a long period.
iv) As the first opposite party do not undertake gas fitment refused to connect the retrofitted gas kit. After taking delivery the complainant with the help of a person connected the gas kit in the premises of the first opposite party and the alleged short of electrical wiring happened only because of the changes affected at time of connecting gas kit.
v) On 28-07-07, the one Mr. Robin brought the vehicle to the workshop with few minor complaints and were rectified to the satisfaction of Robin.
vi) There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service as alleged.
Hence the first and second opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them.
The third opposite party filed version with the following main contentions.
i) The complainant did not enter into any contract for accidental service with the third opposite party
ii) The complainant has impleaded this opposite party with an ulterior motive and the name of the opposite party is liable to be deleted
iii) The relationship between answering opposite party and opposite party nos. 1 & 2 is that of principal – to- principal basis and governed by dealership agreement. The answering opposite party has no control or supervision over the day to day activities of 1 & 2. There is no control of this opposite party over the services rendered in respect of accidental repairs or independent contract entered between opposite party 1 & 2 and complainant.
iv) The third opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice against the complainant.
Hence the third opposite party also prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them.
Points for consideration are:-
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both the parties and exhibits A1 to A5 and B1 to B7.
Point No.1
It is not in dispute that a preliminary estimate was forwarded to the insurance company and that it was informed to the complainant. But the first and second opposite parties contention is that they have never assured that the complainant had to pay Rs.10,000/- towards repair charges and the balance amount will be covered by the insurance. No policy clause or condition is placed on record to prove that only a preliminary estimate is to be forwarded to the insurance company instead of the actual estimate that can be found only after dismantling the vehicle. In our opinion also, the first and second opposite parties should have informed the complainant the actual amount payable by him after dismantling the vehicle and estimating the repairing charges. The act of first and second opposite parties in informing the complainant a particular amount as the estimate initially and after repairing receiving a much higher amount from the complainant as repairing charges is quite unfair.
The complainant averred that the first and second opposite parties had not changed the existing red colour of the car to cherry red colour instead of the complainant’s instruction. But nothing is placed on record to prove that any such instruction was given by the complainant to the opposite parties.
As the first and second opposite parties had received a very high amount as repairing charges instead of the initially informed estimate, the demand of the complainant for the replaced parts at the time of delivery is very genuine. The act of first and second opposite parties in shifting the replaced parts to their central godown without the complainant’s consent and their hesitation to return the replaced parts to the complainant is another instance of unfair trade method committed by them.
The complainant further averred that on 27/07/07, he paid Rs.27,000/- and took delivery of the car. The complainant further averred that on 27-07-07 itself he found certain problems with the repaired car and on 28/07/07 also he noticed some more problems with the car and therefore it was again taken to the first opposite party for repairing and on the same day it was repaired and given back. The complainant next averred that the complaints of the said car persisted even after the aforesaid repairing and therefore he took the car to A.V.G Motors, Kottayam another authorized workshop of the third opposite party and repaired the same spending Rs.3078/-. Evidencing the said repair, the complainant produced the original job slip and retail cash memo dtd 7/08/07 and was marked as Ext.A4. Whereas the first and second opposite parties counter averred that all the complaints were rectified to the satisfaction of the agent of the complainant and that no other complaints as mentioned in para 5 of the complaint were raised before them on 28-07-07.
On perusing the Ext.A4, bill, it is clear that within 10 days of the alleged delivery of the car, the complainant had to take the car to another service centre to get it repaired and he had spend an additional amount of Rs.3078/- for the said repair. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the first and second opposite parties deficient in their service. In our view allowing a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- will meet the ends of justice. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is allowed.
The first and second opposite party will jointly and severally pay Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant as compensation along with a litigation cost of Rs.3000/-.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation.
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the complainant
Ext.A1-series The pay receipts for Rs.27,000/-
Ext.A2-The bill for Rs.493/-
Ext.A3-The detail bill bearing No.CR 3470
Ext.A4-The original bill for Rs. 3078/- issued by AVG
Ext.A5-Copy of notice sent to the opposite parties
Documents of the opposite parties
Ext.B1-Photocopy of the FIR in crime no. 107/07
Ext.B2-Not produced
Ext.B3-Letter given by the petitioner to the 1st OP dtd 20/04/07.
Ext.B4-Photocopy of insurance certificate
Ext.B5-Estimate of repairs prepared on 20-4-07
Ext.B6-Office copy of job order dtd 20-04-07
Ext.B7-Office copy of reply letter
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
