DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of June 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 03/02/2017
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.26/2017)
Abdul Azees Iqbal
Abdul Azees
Safa Manzil
Malampuzha Road
Palakakd - Complainant
V/s
Managing Director,
Vijay Motors Ltd
Palakkad - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member
The complainant in this case has purchased a Tata Nano Vehicle for an amount of Rs.1,87,469/- from the opposite party on 04.09.2014. He had obtained financial assistants from Tata Finance for the purchase of the vehicle and the EMI starts from 09/10/2014 till 09/01/2017 at the rate of 4,130/- for 29 months. The complainant alleges that he had paid all the EMI’s without any fail. Accordingly an amount of 1,19,770/- had been paid to the opposite party. On 07/10/2016 at about 4.00 pm, the silencer manifold of the above vehicle had broken from Ottappalam and the complainant was unable to drive the vehicle. Immediately he informed to the opposite party, but they expressed their inability to take the vehicle to the workshop and informed that they will do it on the next day. Same thing happened on the next day also. Hence, on 19/10/2016 the complainant at his own expense took the vehicle to the opposite party’s service station and handed over the vehicle for repair. The opposite party admits the vehicle in their workshop and handed over a receipt for the same, and informed the complainant to contact after one week. After a week the complainant tried to contact the opposite party over phone, but he could not. Hence, he approached the opposite party’s premises and found that the service station is closed. On the next day also the complainant visited the opposite party showroom and again it was seen locked. He enquired with the neighbouring institutions and they informed that the opposite party show room was closed and it will not be opened further. The complainant alleges that since he had entrusted his phone number and address with the opposite party they ought to have intimated him to take delivery of the vehicle before the service station is closed. The above act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service on their part. Hence, he had approached before the Forum seeking compensation for the negligence and irresponse attitude from the part of opposite party. He also further submits that the said vehicle is his livelihood and he could not ply the vehicle for 180 days and had also to pay huge rate of interest towards EMI due to the above act of opposite party. He had also spent an amount of Rs.2000/- for taking the vehicle from Ottappalam to the opposite party showroom at Chunnambthara. Since the vehicle was entrusted to the opposite party the complainant had to avail the service of another private vehicle for his daily needs. Hence the complainant had claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party as damages and also to deliver the vehicle from the opposite party showroom after due repairs.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite
Party for appearance. Opposite party appear before the forum but sought time for vakkalath and version. Since for the two consequent postings the opposite party neither filed vakkalath nor version. Hence, they were called absent and set exparte.
Complainant filed Chief Affidavit along with documents. Ext.A1 to A6 was marked from the side of complainant. Evidence was closed and matter was heard.
The issue that arises for consideration in this matter are –
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party ?
2.If so what are the relief and cost?
Issues 1 & 2
At the time of hearing the complainant submitted that he took delivery
of the vehicle from the opposite party workshop after due repairs. But the vehicle was handed over for repair to the opposite party on 19/10/2016 as evident from Ext. A1 and as per Ext. A2 he had taken delivery of the vehicle only on 04/03/2017, after the filing of the complaint. He had alleged in the complaint that the opposite party had closed the institutions without intimating him. Only after filing of the complaint the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. More over they had not even filed their version before the forum. In the above circumstances the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings of the complainant along with Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost.
The above said amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant will be entitled to realize interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of June 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Receipt of Car Vijay Motors dated 19.10.16
Ext.A2 – Delivery receipt from vijay Motors dated 04.03.17
Ext.A3 – Car RC Book
Ext.A4 - Car Tax reeipt
Ext.A5 - Certificate of Insurance United India Insurance Ltd
Ext.A6 - Invoice Bill dated. 04.09.16 of Vijay Motors
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost
Rs.3,000/- allowed as cost
