Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/551/2006

Charles Pinheiro - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti True Value - Opp.Party(s)

P.John Victor

16 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   31.10.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   16.02.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II          

C.C.NO.551/2006

THURSDAY THIS  16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY  2017

 

Charles Pinheiro,

Plot No.89-A, Door No.2,

6^th Street,

Ram Nagar,

Velachery,

Chennai – 42.                                         .. Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                        ..Vs..

1.  The Manager,

M/s. Maruthi True Value –

Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd.,

New No.14, Arunachalam Road,

Next to : Vadapalani Bus terminus,

Saligramam, Chennai 600 093.

 

2. The Manager,

Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd.,

New No.14, Arunachalam Road,

Saligramam,

Chennai 600 093.

 

3. The Branch Manager,

M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.,

46, Gandhi Mandapam Road,

Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 085.                     ..Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant             :  M/s. P.John Victor & another  

Counsel for the opposite parties-1&2 :  M/s. D.S.Rajasekaran & others.

Counsel for the opposite party-3       :   M/s.K.Kumaran.

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to  pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as damages  and also to pay a sum of Rs.56,200/- being the balance cost of the car payable to the complainant.

1.   The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        On seeing the advertisement published by the opposite party-1, during the month of March 2005, the complainant approached the 1^stopposite party’s company over mobile No.9444056956 and one Mrs. Biji and the said person has arranged a Maruti Wagon-R bearing Registration No.TN-07-U-6561 and quoted for a price of Rs.3,11,000/- and the same day, the 1^st opposite party has sent the car for inspection to the complainant’s house.   Thereafter, the 1^st opposite party finally fixed a price of Rs.2,65 lakhs and agreed to take the complainant’s two wheeler TN-07-AA-2142 for a sum of Rs.25,000/- as exchange value and after completed the negotiation process the opposite party-1 had arranged a loan from the 3^rd opposite party bank.  

2.     The opposite party-3 has agreed  to issue a loan for Rs.2,40,000/- for 60 months EMI and out of the 60 months EMI, the 3^rd opposite party has received first month advancement payment of Rs.4200/- and the remaining  59 months are divided into three stages that is for the first 23 months Rs.4200/- and for the second stage the EMI was fixed as Rs.6500/- and for the third stage is Rs.8,200/- per month.  In this regard hire purchase agreement was signed by the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party and after complying all the formalities at the end of March 2005 the car was delivered by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

3.     After purchasing the car he has spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- for extra fittings, replacing spare parts, music system with speakers, put new seat covers, replaced front left and right tyres and some other spare parts, etc.    As per the conditions of Maruti True Value car sales it is mandatory to have a month valid insurance, but in this case the 1^st opposite party has issued only two months valid insurance and it is a defect on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  

4.     During the month of January 2006 he had a very big problem on the car.  So he had dropped the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party service centre on 1.2.2006.   But the 2^nd opposite party had negligently done the service and in turn it caused many problems to the vehicle caused irreparable damages to the vehicle, i.e. if  he drive and negotiated the car straight the car automatically turned to left and he has to need to hold the steering very pretty hard then only the car move straight and the wobbling was very much there for a long time and more pronounced then before and the 2^nd opposite party always return the car with more problem that never existed.   Moreover the complainant had another complaint about the rear windscreen wiper of making noise when operated.   So he requested the 2^nd opposite party to replace the wind screen wiper and the 2^nd opposite party replaced the motor and charged but when the car was returned to the complainant he found the wiper has started making sound which was never before and the blades were leaving marks on the wind screen for all the above, he has undergone unbearable mental agony and sufferings to the complainant.

5.     Then the complainant has contacted the 2^nd opposite party through phone and sent many emails on various dates.  The 2^nd opposite party has not repaired fully.   Therefore, the complainant has sent a complaint to the Managing Director of the 1^st opposite party and refused to pay the service charges  to the 2^nd opposite party but the 2^nd opposite party had lodged a false complaint to the Velacherry Police station against the complainant on 15.3.2006 to collect the service charge and thereby the Velacherry police dragged the complainant to the police station and demanded to pay the service charges of Rs.4,373/-.  The attitude of the opposite parties 1 & 2 causing mental agony and more problem which certainly amounts for deficiency of service.  Therefore the complainant had issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 28.8.2006  the opposite parties neither reply nor pay any damages to the complainant.   Hence the complaint.

6. Written Version of  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are  in brief as follows:

        The opposite parties 1 & 2 denies each and every averment made in the compliant except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The complainant was not a owner of the vehicle as the third opposite party had already sold the vehicle in favour of third parties.   Therefore, the above complaint is liable to be thrown out at the threshold as not maintainable.   The complainant had finalized Maruti Wagon R bearing registration No.TN  07 U 6561 which was approved and certified by Maruti Udyog Limited.  Before purchasing the above car, the vehicle was sent to the house of the complainant and after thoroughly inspecting and after satisfied with the condition of the vehicle and technical aspects of the vehicle the complainant had agreed to purchase the above car from  opposite parties 1 & 2.  

7.     After making the entire sale consideration, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in a fully working condition and the complainant did not raise any objection with regard to the condition of the vehicle at the time of taking the delivery of the vehicle.   At the time of delivery of the vehicle the car purchased by the complainant was provided with Air condition, central lock, power window, power steering, stereo and seat covers.  The above fittings were in good condition and there is no need for the complainant to change the above fittings.   

8.     The opposite parties denies the averment that is mandatory to have six months valid insurance for the true value car sales is denied as false.   The opposite parties respectfully states that every year in the month of May, they renew the insurance cover for the above vehicle.  If any person wants to purchase the vehicle in middle, they can enjoy the insurance cover for the remaining period.   In the present case the complainant had purchased the vehicle in the month of March 2005, he can enjoy the insurance cover for the remaining period till May 2005 as it would be impossible to break the insurance period in the middle and get fresh insurance as the opposite parties have paid the insurance premium for the whole year.

9.     Further the issues raised by the complainant are not due to the technical problem of the car.  The problems with regard to the leasing of the car in left side and right side, those problems are due to improper wheel alignment.  Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and the vehicle is in very good condition, with regard to the wiper of the car and put the complainant into strict proof of the same.  Whenever there is a service, the 2^nd opposite party has serviced the vehicle to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant and only after satisfying himself with regard to the condition of the vehicle after the service, the complainant had taken the vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party.   The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties respectfully state that no damages was caused to the radiator and machine assembling area in the car sold to the complainant and only after fully satisfying himself the complainant had taken the car for delivery.  

10.    That after giving the car for service, the complainant had failed to pay a sum of Rs.4373/- to the 2^nd opposite party towards service charges.  Despite informing the complainant to pay the amount due to the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant had failed to pay the amount due to the complainant.  Therefore, the 2^nd opposite party had lodged a police complaint before the Velachery Police Station.  Only after the above police complaint, the complainant had made a payment.    It is clear that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are not entitled to replace all the parts and repair all the defects within the warranty period and the complainant is liable to pay the cost of the repair including labour and service charges.  There is no cause of action for the above complaint and the complainant had filed the above false complaint with imaginary and  fictitious grounds.  As the complainant had approached this forum with unclean hands and had suppressed material fact and the above complain is liable to be dismissed by imposing cost.

11.    Written Version of  3^rd opposite party is  in brief as follows:

          This  opposite party denies all the allegations that are contents of the complaint save those that are specifically admitted herein.   It is an admitted case that this opposite party was only a financier and that except recovering their loan installment every month, they had absolutely no role in the transaction alleged by the complainant.    However it is admitted by the complainant himself in para-9 of his complaint that he had defaulted payment of the loan installment and that owing to the same, the bank had taken possession of the vehicle on 23.3.2006 and later sold the vehicle after prior intimation to the complainant.

12.    The claim of Rs.50,000/- by the complainant towards additional fittings done to his car to be borne by this opposite party is unrealistic, as the complainant had done such ornamental fittings for his benefit and the same does not have any value as such.    The compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and not cogent and is not supported by any material or evidence to substantiate the same.  Hence the same cannot be entertained by the Apex Court that claims or damages that are not actual and real and made in a speculative manner has to be rejected.  

13.    Under Sc.14 (1) (d) of the Act the term compensation means equivalence and the award of compensation by the forum has to be based on well recognized principles governing the quantification of loss or injury suffered to assess compensation and not arbitrarily and also it has to be established whether the loss alleged was direct result of negligence or whether it is remote.  In the absence of such proof the claim cannot be sustained and has to be rejected totally.        

14.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has not filed proof affidavit as his evidence and no document marked.   Proof affidavit of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party filed and no document marked on the side of the opposite parties.

15.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

 

16.    The complainant  has not come forward to file his proof affidavit for his evidence inspite of sufficient time and opportunity given by this forum and thereby the same was closed.   At the same time, proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties 1 & 2 and no documents marked on the side of opposite party.

17. Point No.1:-

        According to the case of the complainant is that after purchase of the Maruti Wagon-R car bearing registration No.TN-07-U-6561 on advertisement given by the opposite party-1,  and after completed the negotiation process of the 1^st opposite party,  the total cost of the car was fixed of Rs.2,65,000/- and on taking the complainant’s two wheeler TN-07-AA-2142 for a sum of Rs.25,000/- as exchange value.   After the opposite party-1 arranged a loan from opposite party-3 bank for the remaining amount of Rs.2,40,000/- and after complying all the formalities of the hire purchase agreement the car was delivered by the opposite party-1 to the complainant.  It is further narrated that on taking delivery of the car, the complainant has spent Rs.50,000/- for extra fittings, replacing spare parts, music system with speakers, put new seat covers,  etc. and during the month of  January 2006 he had a very big problem, on the car and to rectify the problem the complainant dropped the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party Service centre  and different occasions for the problems arise then and there, the opposite party-2 has not repaired the defects properly.  Again and again, the problem occurred, even then the 2^nd opposite party has demanded the service cost of Rs.4373/- and in this connection the opposite party-2 preferred a police complaint against the complainant on 15.3.2006 and thereby caused mental agony and hardship.   It is further aware that in spite of  legal notice the opposite parties have not come forward to rectify the defects and therefore the complaint is filed.

18.      On the other the opposite parties 1 & 2 have denied the allegation and contended that the complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act.  At the outset it is needless to say that the allegation made in the complaint against the opposite parties  to be proved by the complainant by means of relevant and cogent evidence.  In fact, the complainant has not produced any evidence before this forum in spite of sufficient time and opportunity provided by this forum.  It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not filed the proof affidavit as evidence in order to prove the averments made in the complaint through relevant documents.  Therefore mere filing of the complaint  is not only sufficient, but it should be proved through oral documentary evidence as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act.   Then only, it becomes evidentiary value and otherwise it could not be taken into consideration.  Therefore, considering the above facts, it goes without saying that the complainant has not interested in the progress of the complaint filed by him and thereby it can be easily presumed that there is no merit in the allegation of the complainant.   Thus the deficiency of service against the opposite parties has not been proved.  Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

19.      POINT No.2:-

          As per the view concluded in point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

      Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  16^th    day  of  February  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant’s side documents:

.. Nil..

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

.. Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.