Date of filing : 06-12-2008 Date of order : 06-04-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 275/2008 Dated this, the 6th day of April 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Hakkim.K.S, S/o. Muhammad Kunhi.K.S, Dharool Rahmath, Bekal Kunnil, } Complainant Hadad Nagar, Pallikkara, Kasaragod. (Adv. C.Shukkur, Hosdurg) 1. Manager, K.T.C, Automobile Pvt Ltd, N.A.Enclive, National Highway, } Opposite parties Vidyanagar, Kasaragod. 2. Manager, K.T.C Automobiles Pvt.Ltd, Y.M.C.A.Road, Kozhikode.1. (Adv. P.Ishwar Bhat, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Shorn of all other averments and allegations the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties committed inordinate delay in repairing the Hyundai Santro Car bearing Reg.No.KL-60/111 entrusted with them and thereby sustained loss. Hence the complainant claiming a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- on different counts. 2. According to opposite parties the complainant Hakkim is neither a consumer nor he has the locus standi to file the complainant. His brother Thajudheen is the RC owner of the vehicle and hence the complaint ought to have been filed by him. The complainant earlier filed CC.143/08 in the name of his brother Thajudheen. That was dismissed with reservation to file fresh complaint by proper consumer. Hence this complaint should have been filed by Thajudheen. On merits it is the case of the opposite parties that the vehicle was entrusted with them for a major accidental repair on 2-7-2008 and not on 29-06-2008 as alleged by the complainant. 29-06-2008 was a Sunday and opposite parties shop will not be opened on that day. After completing official formalities, repair order was issued to Thajudheen and not to the complainant. The opposite parties did not promise to deliver the vehicle after 15 days from the date of entrustment for repair. The column showing the delivery date in the repair order is not the delivery date after repair, but it is only intended to show the date of delivery of the car from the showroom. Generally it takes 2 months time for repair in the type of major accident cases in all workshops. The vehicle involved in the accident may have apparent and hidden damages. Therefore no one can say the exact date of delivery after repair. The practical difficulties for workshop depends on the quantum of apparent and non-apparent damages, availability of fresh spare parts, availability of workers etc. Therefore exact time required for repair the vehicle could not be fixed. The complainant has not made any enquiry and the opposite parties sought time and give the delivery date as 21-9-2008 at his compulsion. The allegation of the complainant that he spent Rs.1000/- per day by way of taxes fare to travel since his father was affected with illness to legs is not correct. It is the brother of the complainant entrusted the vehicle for repair and complainant is not the user. The workshop of the opposite parties contain limited number of workers and hence they used to take time for repair than usual. This fact is known to the general public in the locality and to the complainant also. The quantum of work involved and replacement of parts are in stages according to request made by Thajudheen. Thajudheen did not take delivery of the vehicle even after the date of completion of repair was intimated to him. The delay in taking delivery shows that he was not in need of the vehicle as alleged. by the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A12 marked on the side of complainant. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for opposite parties. On the side of opposite parties the service-in-charge of Ist opposite party filed affidavit in support of their contentions and Exts B1 to B4 marked. Both sides filed notes of argument. Documents perused carefully. 4. In this case the following points arose for consideration. 1) Whether the complainant has the locus standi to file the complaint? 2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? 3) Relief & Costs? 5. Point No.1 The contention of opposite parties is that the RC Owner of the vehicle is Thajudheen and hence the complainant, that is the brother of Thajudheen has no locus standi to file the complaint and the complaint is therefore not maintainable. On the other hand the case of complainant is that he was using the vehicle and he entrusted the vehicle for repair with opposite parties. There is no dispute that complainant is the brother of the RC Owner of the vehicle Thajudheen. Ext.A3 shows that the vehicle is entrusted for repair by complainant himself and he had signed as the customer. Ext.A1 is the true copy of the passport of Thajudheen. It shows that at the relevant time of accident he was in Gulf. Ext .A2 is the check report cum receipt dated 28-6-08 issued by S.I. of Police Ullal Police Station to the complainant imposing a fine of Rs.300/-for driving the vehicle is negligent manner. Ext.A2 would prove that the user of the vehicle at the relevant time was complainant Hakeem. As per Sec 2(1)(2) of the Consumer Protection Act a consumer includes the user of the goods for consideration and in the case of services includes the beneficiary of such services. Hence the complainant can be treated as user of the car as well as the beneficiary of the services availed from opposite parties. Hence he is a consumer and he can very well institute the complaint. Hence this point is answered accordingly. 6. Point.No.2 The case of the complainant is that the car was involved in an accident on 28-06-08 and it was entrusted with opposite party on 29-6-2008 and at the time of entrustment the opposite parties promised to deliver the vehicle within 15 days. So according to him the vehicle ought to have been delivered on 13-7-2008. But opposite party No.1 delivered the vehicle only on 3-11-2008. The learned counsel for the opposite parties in his notes of argument submitted that the Ext.B3 series of bills wherein the purchase of spare parts was made even after stipulated date promised for delivery i.e 21-8-08 mentioned in Ext.A4 since the complainant had not objected the purchase of spare parts after the said date. This would indicate that the repair was not completed as on 21-8-08. According to opposite parties the delivery of a vehicle after repair which is involved in a major accident on the date assured for delivery may not be practical as it requires observation after repair. Therefore the vehicle was made ready for delivery on 30-08-2008. But inspite of Ext.A5 letter the complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle till 3-11-2008. Ext.A3 is a bill dated 10-09-08 for the purchase of an accessory and it was not a part required for accidental repair. 7. But this argument advanced by the opposite parties is not sustainable in the given circumstances for so many grounds. In the present era human life is very fast and the vehicles are not only a necessary but became a necessity. It is seen that a person who accustomed to use vehicle would get struck with his routine life without the vehicle. In such circumstances it is quiet natural that any one who entrust a vehicle for a repair would be in a hurry to get back his vehicle after completion of repair. According to the opposite parties Ext.A4 is issued under compulsion as per which it is mentioned that the vehicle will be delivered after completion of repair on 21-8-2008. What was the compulsion? Who compelled to issue Ext.A4? What was the circumstances under which it is issued? These questions remained unanswered by opposite parties. Further had there been any such compulsion, then that would lead to another conclusion that the complainant was in urgent need of the vehicle. The further contention that the vehicle was ready for delivery as on 30-08-2008 and Ext.A5 is issued after completion of repair but the complainant did not approach till 3-11-2008 is also not sustainable. As per the 4th terms and conditions of Ext.A3 repair order, the customer is liable to pay Rs.250/- per day as storage charge in the event of delay in taking delivery of the vehicle as against their advice regarding completion of the repair of the vehicle. Had it been so, the opposite parties would have claimed storage charges from the complainant for the period from 30-8-2008 to 31-11-2008. But at no point of time the opposite parties raised such a claim. This fact further weakens the defense of opposite parties. 8. Moreover, the opposite parties in their version has stated that their workshop contains limited number of workers and hence they used to take time for repair than usual. This statement itself make it further clear that there was delay in delivery of the vehicle to complainant. The opposite parties have no case that at the time of entrustment of vehicle they have informed the complainant about the lack of infrastructure and the consequential delay that would cause in repairing the vehicle. Had it been so the delay in delivery of the vehicle after completion of repair would have been justified. Hence this point is answered against opposite parties and we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 9. Point No.3 The claim of the complainant is Rs.1,60,000/- for the loss and hardships and the expenses he incurred due to the non delivery of the vehicle in the stipulated time. According to him he constrained to hire taxi for taking his aged father for his routine affairs. But no evidence is adduced to prove this aspect. As per the terms and conditions of the repair order, the opposite parties are entitled to claim Rs.250/-each per day towards storage charges in the event of delay in taking delivery of the vehicle as against their advice regarding completion of work. In our view a customer is also entitled for that much amount from opposite parties for the delay in repair and delivery of the vehicle. As per Ext.A3 one of the employee of opposite parties Mr.Akhil promised to deliver the vehicle as on 21-8-2008. But it was delivered only on 3-11-2008 i.e. 73 days of after the promised date of delivery. The complainant is entitled for Rs.250/-per day towards the delay in delivery of the vehicle. So for 73 days he is entitled for 18,250/- rupees. Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.18,250/- to the complainant together with a cost of Rs.3000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which the said amount of Rs.18,250/- will carry interest @12% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.Photocopy of passport A2. Check Report-cum-receipt A3.Repair Order A4. 14-8-08 Receipt issued by KTC Automobiles Pvt.Ltd, Kasaragod. A5.30-08-08 letter sent by KTC Automobiles (P)Ltd to Thajudeen A6. letter sent by KTC Automobiles (P) Ltd to Thajudheen A7.6-09-08 Receipt issued by KTC Automobiles Pvt.Ltd , Kasaragod. A8.Cash Invoice A9. 30-10-08 Letter sent by Hakkim.K.S to Service Manager, KTC Automobiles(P) Ltd, Kasaragod. A10.Postal Acknowledgment card A11. Service Brosher issued by Hyundai Company. A12. 3-11-08 Cash receipt. B1.Repair Order B2. 4-7-08 Estimate. B3.Series Cash receipts B4. Repair Order PW1.Hakkim.K.S. DW1. Anish.K.T. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
