DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 29th day of September 2023
CC.456/2013
Complainant
Salim.C,
Chathankottu House,
P.O Avala, Meppayyur (via),
Kozhikode (Dt)
(By Adv. Sri. Abu Puthiyottil)
Opposite Party
- Marina Motors (India) Pvt Ltd,
Bypass road, Pantheerankavu,
Kozhikode – 673019.
(By Adv. Sri. M.Asokan & Adv. Sri. Z.P.Zakariah)
- TATA Motors, 7th floor, Kari Arcade, 116,
Thevangaraya road,
T.Nagar, Chennai -600017
(By Adv. Sri. V.Krishna Menon, Adv.Sri.K.Abdussalam, Adv.Sri. U.K Devidas)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant is the registered owner of the car bearing registration No. KL-56- C- 3296 manufactured by the second opposite party. On 2/04/2013 the complainant entrusted the car with the first opposite party for accidental repairs. While the car was on repair, the first opposite party told the complainant to carry out additional engine work which was a necessary work. So the engine work was also done and an additional amount of Rs. 35,679/- was paid for the said work in addition to Rs. 29, 155/- paid by the complainant while he was reimbursed Rs. 16,470/- from the insurance company in connection with the accidental repairs. The car was delivered back to the complainant on 29/04/2013 after the work. The said car was used for about 600 kilometres and on 12/05/2013 while on running, the engine was found overheating and smoke coming. On intimating the first opposite party, one company mechanic inspected the car and asked to bring the vehicle to the work shop. The first opposite party informed the complainant that the engine had collapsed and the cost of replacement should be met by the complainant. The engine has collapsed only due to the bad work done by the first opposite party.
- On 10/06/2013 the complainant issued a registered lawyer to the opposite parties, which was replied on 28/06/2013 expressing the willingness of solving the issue. The officials of the first opposite party contacted the complainant throughout the days and told that the work had almost started. But surprisingly on 29/08/2013 the first opposite party issued another reply stating and demanding the complainant to remove the vehicle from the premises as they are not liable to carry out the above work.
- The work done by the first opposite party was bad and faulty and the act and attitude of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The complainant was put to intense mental agony, besides monetary loss due to the bad work done by the first opposite parties. Hence the complaint to direct opposite parties to refund the repair charges amounting to Rs. 35,679/- pertaining to the engine and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as cost of replacement of the engine and Rs.50,000/-as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered.
- The opposite parties have resisted the complaint by filing written version separately wherein the contentions raised are almost the same. They have denied all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint. The car was brought to the work shop of the first opposite party on 16/04/2013 at 80,832 kilometres of run for attending accidental repairs. On inspection, it was found that the engine was in a pathetic condition as the complainant had failed to carry out periodic services. It was also found that the engine oil had become thick as glue. The first opposite party advised the complainant to replace the engine. But the complainant was not ready for the same and he stated that only minimal repairs for having the vehicle in a running condition need to be carried out. Accordingly, the service personnel in the work shop had carried out the minimal repair work for having the vehicle in running condition whereupon he had taken delivery of the vehicle. At the time of delivery, the first opposite party had reminded the complainant that the breakdown of the engine would take place at any time and the replacement of the engine was inevitable. The vehicle was repaired as insisted by the complainant to the best of the ability of the first opposite party.
- The overheating and other problems of the engine had happened solely due to the poor maintenance of the car and his reluctance to do timely service. This is evident from the service history of the vehicle. The collapse of the engine was not due to any faulty work of the first opposite party. It is not true that to the lawyer notice a reply was sent stating their willingness to resolve the issue. On 31/08/2013 a reply was sent stating the real facts. The complainant left the vehicle at the service centre of the first opposite party without giving any instruction for carrying out the repair work. The complainant has not removed the vehicle from the premises of the first opposite party so far. There is absolutely no fault or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The attempt of the complainant is to get replacement of the engine of the vehicle by intimidating and pressurising the opposite parties. None of the reliefs is allowable. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
- The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A12 on the side of the complainant. RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts B1, B2 and B3 series were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
- Heard. The complainant filed proof argument notes also.
- Point No. 1 : The complainant is the registered owner of KL- 56- C -3296 Indigo Manza Car manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The first opposite party is the dealer and authorised service centre. The car was purchased by the complainant from the showroom of the first opposite party on 9/08/2010. The grievance of the complainant is that the engine of the car collapsed due to the bad work done by the first opposite party. He is seeking refund of Rs. 35,679/- paid to the first opposite party towards repair charges and Rs 1,50,000/- as cost of replacement of the engine along with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered.
- In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the invoice dated 29/04/2013, Ext A2 is the copy of the invoice dated 16/04/2013, Ext A3 is the copy of the job slip dated 2/04/2013, Ext A4 is the copy of the estimate dated 2/04/2013, Ext A5 is the copy of the receipt dated 29/04/2013, Ext A6 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 10/06/2013 issued to the second opposite party, Ext A7 is the reply notice dated 28/06/2013 issued by the second opposite party, Ext A8 is the reply notice dated 3/08/2013 of the first opposite party, Ext A9 is the reply notice dated 28/09/2013 issued by the first opposite party, Ext A10 is the copy of the cash bill dated 19/06/2012, Ext A11 is the copy of the cash bill dated 6/10/2012 and Ext A12 is the copy of the estimate dated 16/11/2013.
- The case advanced by the opposite parties is that the engine of the vehicle was in a pathetic condition and they had advised the complainant while attending the accidental repairs that the engine would have to be replaced. But the complainant was not ready for engine replacement and he wanted only minimal repairs for having the vehicle in a running condition. Hence only a minimal repair work was done and the troubles of the vehicle are only due to the fault on the part of the complainant in properly maintaining the vehicle by resorting to periodical services. The Customer Care Manager of the second opposite party and the General Manager (Services) of the first opposite party were examined as RWs 1 and 2 respectively and they deposed supporting and reiterating the contentions in the version. Ext B1 is the service history, Ext B2 is the owner’s manual and the Ext B3 series are the job slip along with job card.
- Admittedly, the engine was repaired at the work shop of the first opposite party as an additional work at the time of accidental repairs. PW1 has given evidence that towards the engine repair charges Rs. 35,679/- was paid by him. The car was delivered back to the complainant after repairs on 29/04/2013. Admittedly, on 12/05/2013 at a run of 600 kilometres after repairs, the engine was found overheating and smoke coming and the engine collapsed. The fact that the engine collapsed with in a fortnight of the repairs points at the bad work and deficient service on the part of the opposite parties in spite of levying Rs. 35,679/- towards repair charges of the engine. Going by the evidence in hand, it can be seen that in Ext A7 reply notice sent by the second opposite party to the notice sent by the complainant, they demanded necessary documents for processing and in Ext A8 reply notice sent by the first opposite party, they have in fact expressed their willingness to resolve the issue. It is clearly stated in Ext A8 that “For solving the issue, our Service Manager Mr. Digin Kumar had discussion with Mr. Salim.C your client on 1st August and arrived at an amicable solution. Hence we request your good self to set aside the further proceedings of this case consulting your client”. Ext A8 is not disputed by the opposite parties.
- But it is seen that later the first opposite party has changed their stand and sent another letter denying their liability and asking the complainant to remove the vehicle from their premises. The allegations stated in Ext A9 do not find a place in Ext A8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant, a contrary stand is taken by the opposite parties in Ext A9 only to avoid the liability.
- The opposite parties have taken a contention that the periodical services to the vehicle were not resorted to by the complainant. But the service history of the vehicle shows that all the mandatory periodical services were done. Further Ext A10 to A12 would reveal that services were done outside also. Hence the allegation of the opposite parties in this regard is without any basis.
- The engine collapsed within a few days of its repair at 600 kilometres of run which indicates nothing but defective and faulty service/repair of the opposite parties. Deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties stands proved. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 35,679/- paid by him towards repair of the engine, though he is not entitled to get the cost of replacement of the engine or compensation from the opposite parties. He is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.
- Point No. 2: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
- CC 456/2013 is allowed in part.
- The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,679/- (Rupees thirty five thousand six hundred and seventy nine only) to the complainant, being the repair charges paid by him.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
- The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 35,679/- shall carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 29th day of September, 2023.
Date of Filing: 05/10/2013.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext.A1 – Copy of the invoice dated 29/04/2013.
Ext A2 - Copy of the invoice dated 16/04/2013.
Ext A3 - Copy of the job slip dated 2/04/2013.
Ext A4 - Copy of the estimate dated 2/04/2013.
Ext A5 - Copy of the receipt dated 29/04/2013,.
Ext A6 - Copy of the lawyer notice dated 10/06/2013 issued to the second opposite party,
Ext A7 - Reply notice dated 28/06/2013 issued by the second opposite party,
Ext A8 - Reply notice dated 3/08/2013 of the first opposite party,
Ext A9 - Reply notice dated 28/09/2013 issued by the first opposite party,
Ext A10 - Copy of the cash bill dated 19/06/2012.
Ext A11 - Copy of the cash bill dated 6/10/2012.
Ext A12 - Copy of the estimate dated 16/11/2013.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext B1 - Service history.
Ext B2 - Owner’s manual
Ext B3 - Job slip along with job card.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Salim.C (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1 – Jibin Sasidharan
RW2 – Biju K Sundaran
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
True Copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
