IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of September, 2016
Filed on 30.09.2014
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.248/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Dinu. S. Nair 1. The Manager, Focuz Motors Ltd.
Dinu Bhavanam Valanjavazhi LCV (Ser)
Muhamma P.O. Vandanam P.O., Valanjavazhi
Cherthala, Alappuzha Alappuzha
(By Adv. T.D. Rajendrakumar)
2. Tata Motors Ltd., 20th Floor
Tower 2 A, One India, Bull Centre
841 Senapati, Bapat Marg
lphinston Road, Mumbai –
13, Maharashtra
(By Adv. C. Muraleedharan – for
Opposite parties 1 and 2)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant was earning his livelihood by driving the vehicle. Complainant purchased Tata LPO Star Bus from the first opposite party on 30.3.2013. While going to Parasanikadavu from Ambalappuzya the vehicle involved in an accident and he entrusted the vehicle with the first opposite party on 22.10.2013 for carrying out certain accident repairs. The first opposite party had made assurance that the vehicle will be delivered within 20 days after carrying out the repair works. But the opposite party delivered the vehicle only on 21.12.2013. The inordinate delay in delivering the vehicle after repairing caused much financial loss to the complainant. The vehicle has still so many complaints like water leakage from the roof the vehicle. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant cannot be treated as a consumer and the complaint is to be dismissed as not maintainable. The complainant insisted that his vehicle should be attended to at Alappuzha, and had been informed over the telephone that he would have to meet the additional towing charge for towing vehicle to Alappuzha, since the insurance company in terms with their regulations would met up to Rs.1500/- towards towing charge. The complainant towed his vehicle to the workshop at Alappuzha on 22.10.2013. He paid an advance amount of Rs.15,000/- on 22.10.2013. After the repairs the vehicle was ready for delivery on 21.12.2013. They never assured the complainant that the repairs would be completed within 20 days as alleged by the complainant. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.45,000/- on 21.12. 2013. Thereafter he issued a cheque for Rs.31,572/-. The said cheque was returned as dishonoured on 16.6.2014 with the endorsement funds insufficient. Complainant had raised the present allegation in order to wriggle out of the liability to pay the amount legally due o this opposite party. It was only on 12.5.2014, after the vehicle had covered 24991k.m. that the complainant for the first time complained of water leakage. The opposite party is in no way liable for the alleged default. Hence this opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant.
3. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant cannot be treated as a consumer and the complaint is to be dismissed has not maintainable. The complainant entrusted his vehicle with the 2nd opposite party for carrying out certain accident repairs under insurance coverage and the opposite party had carried out the repairs to the satisfaction of the complainant. The allegation that the complainant had sustained sever loss of income etc., during the period his vehicle was in the workshop of the first opposite party is not correct. The complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. One witness was examined as PW2. An expert commissioner was examined as CW1. The commission report is marked as Ext.C1. The opposite party was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2.
5. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs and costs?
6. Point No.1:- The complainant had mentioned categorically that he had bought the Bus to be used exclusively by him for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment. Even if he has to employ his brother for running the bus, it would not have charged the matter in any case as he was earning his livelihood from it. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that he wanted to use the bus for any commercial purpose. Hence the issue No.1 answered in favour of the complainant that he would be deemed to be a consumer within the definition as contained in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.
7. Points No.2 & 3:- It is an admitted fact that complainant entrusted the vehicle on 22.10.2013 with the first opposite party for carrying out the certain repairs consequent to an accident. According to the complainant, even though opposite party promised to deliver the vehicle within 20 days, they delivered the vehicle only after two months. The main allegation of the complainant is that due to the inordinate delay committed by the first opposite party in delivering the vehicle he sustained much financial loss and mental agony. According to the opposite party he had not make any undertaking that he will deliver the vehicle within 20 days. They further stated that after the insurance company had accorded its approval for the necessary repairs, the first opposite party had placed orders with the manufacturer for the necessary spare pats. Only on receipt of the parts, the necessary repairs had been carried out. The complainant alleged that despite making complaints and numerous visits, first opposite party was not able to repair the vehicle properly and gave it to him in a defect free condition. The question to be answered is whether the first opposite party committed delay in returning the vehicle after repairing. It is an admitted fact that complainant paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- on 22.10.2013 and he entrusted the vehicle for carrying out the repairs due to the accident. According to the opposite party they never assured the complainant that the necessary repairs would be completed within 20 days. They further stated that only on receipt of the parts, the necessary repairs do not carried out. But the first opposite party failed to produce the approval made by the insurance company for doing the repairs and also the communication made by them with the 2nd opposite party for getting the spare parts. Had the first opposite party made the communication properly they should have receive the spare parts and also have to make repairing without delay. Ext.A5 is the letter dated 29.11.2013 issued by the first opposite party which shows that they are awaiting the few parts from the 2nd opposite party. The said communication was made one month after the vehicle was entrusted with them. As per Ext.A6 job card, the expected delivery date is 22.11.2013. According to the opposite party, they delivered the vehicle only on 21.12.2013. The reason for the delay in delivering the vehicle after accepting the advance is not explained satisfactorily by the first opposite party. This establishes that the first opposite party committed inordinate delay in returning the vehicle after carrying out the repairs.
8. The another allegation of the complainant that even after repairing the vehicle it has still so many complaints like water leakage from the roof of the vehicle. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version stated that after taking delivery on 21.12.2013 the vehicle was brought by the complainant to the workshop of the first opposite party on 8.1.2014, 1.4.2014 and 16.4.2014 and that none of these occasions had the complainant ever complained of any water leakage from the roof of the vehicle and it was only on 12.5.2014 the complainant for the first time complaint of water leakage from the roof along with few other complaints. The vehicle was purchased on 30.3.2013. Ext.A11 produced by the complainant shows that the warranty shall be valid for 36 months from the date of sale of the vehicle. According to the opposite parties, the complainant made complaint of water leakage on 12.5.2014. So it is clear that the complaint of water leakage arise within the warranty period. More over Ext.C1 the commission report also shows that there was leakage from the roof of the vehicle. In Ext.C1 the expert categorically stated that, 4(a) – “....................................................................................................................................................................................................”
Even after all repairs carried out as claimed by the opposite party, as per the expert report, there is still leakage on the roof of the vehicle due to the defect in repairing the leakage. Having agreed to carry out all the repairs if they failed to rectify the defects properly that amounts to defect and deficiency in service. From the foregoing discussions, we are of considered view that the opposite parties committed inordinate delay in returning the vehicle to the complainant and also there was defect and deficiency in service in repairing the vehicle.
In the result, complaint allowed. The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards compensation to the complainant for the financial loss and mental agony sustained by the act of the first opposite party. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to repair the vehicle and return it within 2 weeks in a defect free condition. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Dinu. S. Nair (Witness)
PW2 - Deepu. S. Nair (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the Certificate of registration
Ext.A2 - Copy of the Certificate of Policy cum schedule
Ext.A3 - Copy of the cash receipt dated 22.10.13
Ext.A4 - Copy of the cash receipt dated 21.12.13
Ext.A5 - Letter dated 29.11.2013
Ext.A6 - Job card – Customer copy
Ext.A7 - Tax Invoice dated 30.3.2013
Ext.A8 - Free service eligibility slip – dated 30.3.13
Ext.A9 - Attested copy of ration card
Ext.A10 - Copy of driving license
Ext.A11 - Copy of the warranty
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Alex Alexander (Witness)
Ext.B1 series - Job cards dated 8.1.14, 1.4.14, 16.4.14 and 12.5.14
Ext.B2 - The computer print out of the service history of the vehicle
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
