SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the  opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for causing mental agony and  improper service of OP’s and cost of  Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part.

The case of the complainant in brief:

    The complainant is the owner of KL-58 V-7574 Maruti Wagnor VXI BS IV model car He purchased the car on 17/7/2017 from 1^st OP.  On 25/4/2018 the car met with a small accident at Koothuparamba.  On 26/4/2018 the complainant approached 3^rd OP for upholstery clearing  of the vehicle.  Then the said OP .NO.3 advised the complainant to  kept the vehicle on their custody for service after issuing job card.  On 28/4/2018 at 6.40 P.M one of the  staff reported that the vehicle was serviced and defect cured.  They reported that they are replaced the back  dickey, glass and bumper and they have  done interial cleaning ,washing and polishing the vehicle and 3^rd OP collected additional charges from the complainant.  On 29/4/2018 the complainant taken the car but it is understand that the problems kept as not  cured from the  body of the car and it making bad sound from the dickey.  He also noticed that strained mark and paint  dots on the dickey.  On 3/5/2018 one  mechanic came and taken the vehicle for proper service and he returned the vehicle at 8.p.m on the same day and he said that no complaint seen on the vehicle.  On 5/5/2018 morning the complainant was driving the vehicle, it realised that the complaint was  still there.  The nuts and bolts of the dickey was not properly tightened.  Then the complainant informed the matter to 3^rd OP about the improper service.  On 7/5/2018 one of the mechanic came at Peravoor to inspect the car and states that bolts are not properly fitted on the dickey.  The complainant  also done the 4^th periodical service of the vehicle and charged Rs.4000/- on that time the complainant noticed a scratch on the bumper of the vehicle which was not have been on the vehicle earlier.  The authorities promised that they will cured the defects.  On 10/5/2018 at night one of the staff named Sarath came to Peravoor for  deliver the  vehicle to complainant.  But the complainant noticed that one of the  reflector disappeared from the car which was fixed there earlier.  He also received a  letter from the staff of 3^rd OP about the complaint.  Then the manager bring the reflector at 10.P.M on the same day.  Then the complainant sent a lawyer notice dtd.28/6/2018 to all OP’s .  On 6/8/2018 the OP’s 1 to 3 sent  a reply notice with false and  fabricated contentions .  The  noisy sound from the car is not cured so far.   The acts of OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

       After filing the complaint notice issued  to all OP’s.  After receiving the notice 2^nd OP entered appearance before the commission and filed his written version. He contended that any transaction with regard to the accidental repairs is strictly between the R.C owner of the vehicle and the concerned dealer and the 2^nd OP is not at all liable.  The complainant in this case was specifically related to complainant’s grievance against 3^rd OP.  The said vehicle was reported at the work shop of 3^rd OP for carrying out  accidental repairs  on 26/4/2018 at  18283Km.  However as on 27/11/2019 the vehicle has been  plied for around 50,000 Kilo meters.  Then the said vehicle  has run for more than 30,000km after the said alleged accident on 25/4/2018.  So it is clear that the vehicle is defect free and has been performing satisfactorily after the said repairs in the vehicle.  There is no cause of action against 2^nd OP and there is no  deficiency of service from the side of  2^nd OP.  So the complaint may be dismissed. OPs 1&3 received notice  and not filed version and not appeared before the commission.  So OPs 1&3 set exparte.

     On the basis  of the rival contentions by the pleadings the  following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   from the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The  evidence  consists of the oral testimony of PW 1 and  Exts. A1 to A6 and Ext.C1 also marked on his part.  From  side of OP’s no oral evidence or documentary evidence adduced.

Issue No.1: 

                The  Complainant  adduced evidence before the commission by submitting  his chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version.   The complainant  was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 and Ext.C1 marked to substantiate  his case also. According  to the complainant on 26/8/2018 the complainant send a lawyer notice to all OP’s stating that the defects of the  vehicle is not  cured properly even though the OP’s serviced the vehicle  several times. The noisy sound is not cured and the improper service of the vehicle caused bad condition of the vehicle.  In Ext.A2 is the reply notice send by OPs 1 &3 contended that there is no noisy sound and other defects.  The defects were properly cured by 3^rd OP also.  In Ext.A3 series  is the acknowledgment card.  According to the complainant in Ext.A4 the job card noted that upholstery cleaning-back bumper small dust and cleans  next service dtd.28/4/2018.  As per Ext.A4 and Ext.A5 the cash bill paid by the complainant.  As per Ext.A6 the letter issued by one Mr.Sharath admitted the disappearance of one reflector in the vehicle at the time of taking the vehicle for repair dtd.10/5/2018.  At the time of evidence PW1 was not cross examined by the OP’s.  In OP’s  side except the version of  2^nd OP no evidence is tendered before the commission and not proved their defense also.  In order to prove noisy sound of the vehicle and the defect of the vehicle the complainant filed a petition dated 28/10/2021 to appoint an expert commissioner to inspect the vehicle and he should filed a report before the  commission.  The petition allowed by the commission and appoint Mr.Sooraj Moorkkoth, Assistant Motor Vehicle inspector R.T Office Kannur.  After inspection  the expert filed the report before the commissiondtd.1/1/2/2021.  As per Ext.C1 the expert stated that abnormal notice rattling noise from rear side other than rear suspension shock absorber noise which is related to dickey door  misalignment.  Moreover he stated that both left and right side of vehicle dickey gap difference exists, which is not normal.  At the time of inspections all parties are present.  As per Ext.C1 report both sides  no objection filed before the commission.  Hence it is clear that the complainant caused much mental agony regarding the defects of the vehicle.  So we hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of all OP’s . Hence the issue No.1  found in favour of the complainant.

Issue Nos.2&3:

        As discussed above the complainant send a lawyer notice to OP’s on 28/6/2018.  But the expert inspected the vehicle No.KL58V 7574 Maruti Wagnar on 1/12/2021.  The year of manufacturing  2017 registered on 16//8/2017 and odometer reading  while inspecting the vehicle83588 KM.  The opinion of the expert in Ext.C1 report the overall condition of vehicle is neither satisfactory nor upto standard quality.  The irregularities  found  the abnormal notice rattling noise from rear side other than rear suspension shock absorber noise, which is related to the dickey door misalignment.  Both left and right side of vehicle  dickey gap difference exist, which is not normal.   Therefore we hold that the opposite parties are jointly and severally  liable  to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony and improper service of the vehicle along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.  Thus issue Nos2&3 are also accordingly answered. 

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part  directing the opposite parties jointly and severally  liable  to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation  for mental agony and improper service of the vehicle to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost  within  30 days of  receipt  of this order. In default the amount of Rs.50,000/- carry  12% interest  per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which the  complainant is at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- Lawyer notice

A2-Reply notice

A3-Acknowledgment card(3 in Nos.)

A4- Job card issued by 3^rd OP

A5- Invoice bills

A6-Letter issued by 3^rd OP’s staff

C1- Commission report

PW1-Sarath Chandran- complainant

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR