IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 05th day of October, 2020
Filed on 13. 06. 2017
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholy.P.R. BA. LLB(Member)
In
CC/No. 161/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Ronald John Manager, Car More
Vayaraapurath House The Car Accessories Hub
Pallarimangalam.P.O Pulimoodu Junction
Alappuzha west of Municipal Park
(Adv. Aliyamma Abraham) Mavelikara.
(Adv. K.Najeeb).)
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986
Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
Complainant purchased a Maruti Swift VDI car on 16/6/2015 bearing Reg. No. KL 31–H-6241 from Indus workshop Mallappally. On the same day complainant approached opposite party to install a Reverse Camera and Sensor. It was installed on the same day for a cost of Rs.50,000/-. One year warranty was given by the opposite party for the fittings.
After 5 months that is on 4/12/2015 complainant tried to start the car and it was not responding. Immediately he contacted the Indus Motors Mavelikara. On examination it was found that complaint was related to HPP (High Pressure Pump). The main wiring was tampered for installing the reverse sensor and camera. It was strictly in violation of the warranty policy and procedures. Indus Motors, Mavelikara denied the responsibility and warranty because the complaint occurred strictly due to the negligence of the opposite party while installing reverse camera and sensor. Indus Motors, Mavelikara had demanded Rs.40,000/- for clearing the complaint. Complainant entrusted the car with the Indus Motors, Mavelikara and got it repaired on payment of Rs.39,250/- as per bill dtd. 19/2/2016.
Due to the negligence of the opposite party the complainant deprived of the vehicle for a period of more than 6 months and he had to spent Rs.50, 000/- for his journey. Complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of damages and loss sustained by him. A legal notice was issued and in spite of receipt of the same, there was no reply. Hence the complaint is filed for realizing an amount of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony,Rs.39,250/- for repairing charges and Rs.50,000/- as rent for the car.
2. Opposite party filed version mainly contenting as follows:-
On 16/6/2015 complainant approached this opposite party for fixing reverse camera and sensor and it was done. The contention that Rs. 50,000/- was spent for the same is not true. Only Rs. 9,500/- was collected for fixing the same. In the notice sent by the complainant the amount shown is Rs. 14,000/- and in the complaint the amount shown is Rs. 50,000/- which is only to harass the opposite party. One year warranty was given for the fittings.
Till 4/12/2015 there was no complaint and the reverse camera and sensor was functioning properly. The contention that after 6 months complaint occurred for the HPP(High Pressure Pump) is not correct. For fixing reverse camera and sensor connection was taken from the main wiring below the steering and it is being done by all the parties. Opposite party had installed reverse camera for more than thousand cars and there was no complaint. There is no reason for damaging High Pressure Pump (HPP) and the possibilities are only for electrical complaint. Damage to High Pressure Pump can only occur due to manufacturing defect or defect in engine. This opposite party is not liable for violation of warranty and the reverse camera and sensor were fixed as per the request of the complainant. Since the accessories were purchased from outside, Indus Motors have not repaired the car on lame excuses.
This opposite party had received only an amount of Rs. 9,500/- as the value of reverse camera and sensor. Opposite party has no connection regarding the spending of Rs. 39,250/- at M/s Indus Motors. There was no negligence from the part of the opposite party. Reply notice was sent to the lawyers notice. There is no cause of action and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
3. On the above pleadings following points arise for consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 39,250/- from the opposite parties as repairing charges as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 50,000/- being the rent for car as prayed for?
4. Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 from the side of opposite party.
5. Points no.1 to 3:-
For the sake of convenience these points are considered together.
PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A6. RW1 is the opposite party in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version. The case of PW1 the complainant case is that on 16/6/2015 he purchased a Maruti Swift VDI car from Indus workshop, Mallappally. On the same day he entrusted the car with the opposite party to fix a reverse camera and sensor. On the same day the car was returned after fixing the reverse camera and sensor. However some starting trouble arose to the car and he produced the same before Indus Motors, Mavelikara. After inspection it was informed that the HPP(High Pressure Pump) of the car is not working. According to them the damage occurred due to the wrong fixing of reverse camera and sensor. The reverse camera and sensor had a warranty of one year and the incident occurred within warranty period. Hence the case is filed for realizing Rs. 99,250/- on various heads. Complainant got examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A6. Opposite party filed version contenting that as per request of PW1 reverse camera and sensor was fixed for which only an amount of Rs 9,500/- was collected. It was fixed on 16/6/2015 and opposite party had given one year warranty for the same. It was fixed by taking a loop from main wiring harness below the steering. By fixing the same there is no reason to have any damage to HPP. Even if it is wrongly fixed that can only damage the electric system. Here there was no complaint for electric system hence the damage of HPP was not occurred due to the fixing of reverse camera and sensor. Since PW1 did not purchase the accessories from M/s Indus motors they were unable to give warranty for the defect of the car. Hence there was no mistake from the part of the opposite party and so the complaint is only to be dismissed. The manager of opposite party was examined as RW1.
The fact that PW1 produced his car on 16/6/2015 before opposite party for fixing reverse camera and sensor and that on the same day it was installed is not in dispute. It is also an admitted case that it was having a warranty of one year which is revealed from Ext.A2. Now the only question to be decided is whether the HPP became damaged due to the wrong fixing of the reverse camera and sensor and what was the value of the same. According to RW1 they had fixed reverse camera and sensor for so many vehicles and so far there was no complaint. It was contented that since the accessories were not purchased from M/s Indus Motors they had an axe to grind. Ext.A6 letter dtd. 1/1/2016 sent from Indus Motors to complainant shows that since there was violation of warranty by fixing reverse sensor from outside they are unable to give warranty for the part (HPP) which was damaged. While giving evidence before the Commission PW1 admitted that the price for fixing reverse camera and sensor at M/s Indus Motors were on the higher side and that is why he preferred the opposite party. As seen from Ext.A2 letter M/s Indus Motors cannot extend the warranty since reverse sensor was not a Maruti genuine accessory(MGA) and so that it was purchased from outside. Hence it can be seen that there was negligence on the part of PW1 by choosing opposite party for fixing reverse camera and sensor why because warranty will be available only if accessories from Maruti are purchased and fixed(MGA). According to PW1 he spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- for fixing the reverse camera and sensor and he explained that it is including the amount for repairing HPP(High Pressure Pump). RW1 stated that the amount collected was only Rs.9,500/-. During cross examination PW1 admitted that in the legal notice he had claimed an amount of Rs. 14,000/- being the amount incurred for fixing the reverse camera and sensor. The bill issued by RW1 is not seen produced to show the exact amount spent by PW1. Admittedly the reverse camera and sensor was fixed on 16/6/2015 and the complaint started on 4/12/2015. So for about 6 months there was no complaint for the vehicle. If that is so it cannot be said that the complaint happened due to the wrong fixing of reverse camera and sensor became it should happen immediately after fixing the accessory that is on 16/6/2015. However as per Ext.A2 it was having a warranty for one year and it is admitted by RW1 during cross examination.
PW1 had produced Ext.A4 series trip sheets amounting Rs.44,151/- to show that when the vehicle was in workshop he had arranged a taxi car for his journey. According to PW1 the vehicle was entrusted for repairs at M/s Indus Motors on 4/12/2015 and it was returned only during February last or March 2016. PW1 admitted that the delay occurred due to the non availability of spare parts. Ext.A4 series as produced to prove that during the said period PW1 had availed service of private taxi for his journey. It is noticed that there is no serial number in Ext.A4 Trip sheets. The respective drivers who issued Ext.A4 series are not seen examined to prove the genuiness. Further as stated earlier the vehicle was not returned after repairs by M/s Indus Motors due to the non availability of spare parts. So such an amount cannot be claimed from the opposite party. As discussed earlier there is no clear evidence to show the price of reverse camera and sensor. PW1 claims that he had spent about Rs.50,000/- whereas according to RW1 they had only collected Rs.9,500/-. However PW1 admitted that in the legal notice he had claimed only Rs.14,000/- . The case of PW1 is that the HPP became damaged since the reverse camera and sensor was not fixed properly. To prove the same PW1 is relying upon Ext.A6 letter dtd.1/1/2016 issued from M/s Indus Motors, Mallappally. However the person who issued Ext.A4 letter was not examined to prove the veracity of the letter. From Ext.A6 it is seen that M/s Indus Motors could not extend the warranty since the reverse sensor was not purchased from them. Only if Maruti genuine accessories are used they will be able to give the warranty. The choice was of the complainant. He preferred opposite party since the value of reverse sensor supplied from M/s Maruti is on higher side. However it is seen that the complaint occurred during the warranty period that is within one year. In said circumstances PW1 is entitled to get it repaired from opposite party. However PW1 produced his vehicle at the Maruti authorized workshop and get it repaired and so there is no point in granting such a relief. Since the actual value of the accessory is not available, we are of the view that Rs.10,000/- can be fixed as the value. RW1 says that it was Rs. 9,500/- whereas in the legal notice issued by PW1 it is stated that he had spent an amount of Rs. 14,000/-. As discussed earlier PW1 is not entitled to claim the amount covered by Ext.A4series trip sheets, since he admitted that the vehicle could not be repaired in time due to the non availability of spare parts. PW1 is claiming an amount of Rs.39,250/- as repairing charges. However there is no clear evidence to show that the damage occurred due to the wrong fixing of the reverse camera and sensor. In said circumstances the amount spent by PW1 as per Ext.A1 bill cannot be reimbursed. PW1 selected opposite party for purchasing reverse camera and sensor since the amount was less compared to Maruti genuine accessory. Since PW1 purchased reverse camera and sensor from outside M/s Indus Motors were unable to extend the warranty and change the pump assembly free of cost. If that is so PW1 has to blame himself. PW1 is claiming an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony. As discussed earlier it was his own choice and there was no solicitation from opposite party. However considering the entire aspects we are of the view that an amount of Rs. 2000/- can be granted on account of mental agony. These points are found accordingly.
6. Point No.4:-
In the result complaint is allowed in part.
A) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) from the opposite party.
B) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand) as compensation from the opposite party.
C) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 2000/-(Two thousand) as cost from the opposite party.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him correct by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 05th day of October, 2020.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Smitha.M.G(complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Bank Receipts Sales Ho Voucher
Ext.A2 - Copy of Bank Receipts Sales Ho Voucher
Ext.A3 - Gold Loan card from Bank of Baroda
Ext.A4 - Copy of Order Booking Form
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Muhammad Shafi(Witness)
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
