Date of Filing: 14/12/2011
Date of Order: 25/01/2012
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 25th DAY OF JANUARY 2012
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
C.C. NO.2259 OF 2011
Rajeev Kumar,
S/o. Shri.Vijaya Kumar,
R/o. # 132, ARAFA, LRDE Layout,
Maratha Halli, Bangalore. …. Complainant.
V/s
(1) The Manager,
Maxwell Packers ‘n’ Movers,
Next to Park, No.B-177, 1st Floor,
DDUTTL Industrial Subrub, 2nd Stage,
Yeswanthpur, Bangalore-560022.
(2) The Chairman/Managing Director,
Maxwell Packers ‘n’ Movers,
Corporate Office, Surya Towers,
7th Floor, 105, S.P. Road, Secundrabad-5600003.
Andhra Pradesh.
(3) Maxwell Logistics Private Limited,
12, Nirman Arcade, (1st Floor),
Mumbai Pune Highway, Nigdi,
Pune-411044, Maharastra.
Rep. by its Directors.
(4) The Managing Director,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
401-402, Interface Bldg; No.11,
Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064. …. Opposite Parties.
BY SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, MEMBER
-: ORDER:-
This brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.49,575/-, the amount spent for repair of the vehicle, and to pay Rs.19,400/- spent towards computation charges and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, for the mental agony and trauma suffered, to the complainant, are necessary:-
The opposite parties 1 to 3 are the packers and movers and the 4th opposite party is the Insurance Company. The complainant had approached the 3rd opposite party for transportation of his new vehicle bearing registration No. MH-12 EX-8817 from Viman Nagar, Pune to Karthik Nagar Bangalore. The vehicle was new one and had run only 5000 kms and the same was under warranty. The complainant had informed the 3rd opposite party that the said new vehicle was under warranty and had requested the 3rd opposite party that if there is any damage to the vehicle during transit, the same should be communicated to the complainant and all such damage to be repaired under the supervision of authorized car service provider and the 3rd opposite party agreed to transport the said vehicle in good condition and undertaken to indemnify any loss caused to the complainant. Accordingly the complainant handed over the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party for transportation on 05.08.2010 which to be delivered at Bangalore on 09.08.2010. The transportation charges were Rs.10,000/-, out of which the complainant had paid Rs.5,000/- to the 3rd opposite party and the balance amount to be paid at the time of delivery. The 3rd opposite party had checked the documents i.e., insurance, warranty and details of the authorized dealers, user manual and also declarations of accessories of the said car. The 3rd opposite party neither delivered the car to the complainant nor to the 1st opposite party at Bangalore. Though the complainant enquired with the opposite parties regarding delivery of car to him, the executives of the opposite parties at Bangalore and head office did not give any information to the complainant. The complainant had also sent e-mail to the opposite parties on 13.08.2010. The complainant had made several phone calls to the opposite parties, since 09.08.2010. But they have not given satisfactory reply to the complainant. There was no response from the 1st opposite party at Bangalore office also. On 05.08.2010 the opposite parties informed the complainant that the said car met with an accident while shifting the same in to the carriage and as such, there is delay in delivery of the said vehicle. On enquiry, the opposite parties have stated that there were only some exterior damage to the vehicle in the right side head light, front bumper, a dent in the front side and chipping of paint at some places. The complainant had requested the opposite parties to get the said vehicle, checked with the authorized dealers as the said vehicle is under warranty and extended warranty he had already given the details of the authorized dealers and requested the opposite parties not to repair the car anywhere else, as the complainant cannot claim the warranty and insurance benefits. Though the opposite parties had agreed to take the vehicle to the authorized dealer for repairs, they have stated that the said car was taken to a local mechanic “Farhad Auto Garage” and the car was repaired on 15.08.2010. The opposite parties were negligent in handling the car of the complainant. The complainant suffered a great shock and surprise when he heard about the damage to the car and negligence of the opposite parties in handling the car. The opposite parties failed to repair the car with the authorized dealers, as promised. The opposite parties delivered the car to the complainant on 20.08.2010 and they demanded balance amount of Rs.5000/-. The opposite parties did not allow the complainant to inspect the car and forced the complainant to pay the balance amount to the 1st opposite party. The complainant took the said vehicle to the authorized dealer and the authorized dealer gave him an estimation of Rs.1,02,716/-. The complainant informed the same to the opposite parties through e-mail on 23.08.2010. As the vehicle was due for insurance during September-2010, the complainant wanted to get the vehicle repaired before that date. The complainant sent e-mails on 26.08.2010, 29.08.2010 to the 3rd opposite party requesting them for compensation, due to damages caused. The complainant has also requested for details of the accident, i.e., name of the driver, site of accident, date, time of accident and copy of the FIR, so that he can claim insurance. In reply the opposite parties have sent a copy of FIR, but there is mention about the accident of the complainant’s car. On 06.12.2010 the complainant sent an e-mail to the representatives of the 3rd opposite party, asking explanation as to why they cannot allow full insurance for the vehicle. In their reply they have stated that they have assessed the loss on the basis of their initial inspection wherein the vehicle reported to the workshop and major of the parts were in pre-repaired condition. Their insurance liability is only up to Rs.15,697/- and the rest of the amount has to be borne by the complainant. On 04.09.2010 when the vehicle was taken to the Korpex India Limited, the authorized dealers of Chevrolet car, have given an inventory sheet bearing serial No.7983, wherein, there is a check list and the service advisor remarked that many part of the vehicle were in damaged state after the delivery of the vehicle taken by the complainant. The invoice amount was Rs.65,272/-. As the 4th opposite party has granted Rs.15,697/- an insurance claim; the complainant has paid the remaining amount of Rs.49,575/- to Kropex India Limited and taken the vehicle from them. The complainant has also given legal notice to the opposite parties on 02.02.2011, but the opposite parties have given evasive untenable reply on 14.03.2011 and failed to comply with the notice. Hence the complaint.
2. The opposite parties 1 to 3 in their version have stated that, the car referred to in Para-4 of the complaint a new car and that it was on warranty, is denied as false and baseless and further they have stated that no one will think of any damage to the said vehicle while booking for transportation and as such there was no occasion or need for the complainant to instruct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to get such damages repaired under the supervision of the only authorized car service provider. They have also denied that the vehicle was assured to be delivered on 09.08.2010 and no assurance was given with regard to the date of delivery of the vehicle to the complainant as it was a matter of transportation by road. Further they have stated that the front bumper, the right side head light and front show was damaged while shifting the vehicle into the carriage, and the same was informed to the complainant and the complainant in turn informed them to get the damaged portion repaired and get the vehicle transported and accordingly they got repaired the vehicle by spending Rs.13,500/- and transported the vehicle and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle after fully satisfied about the repaired condition and performance of the vehicle without any complaint and paid the balance amount of transportation charges. The name of the driver, copy of the complaint and the place of accident were furnished to the complainant, as requested by him and nothing was suppressed. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and the damage to the vehicle was only a sheer accident, which happened in spite of careful handling of vehicle while shifting the car to the carriage and the same was duly repaired in a very reputed garage with due information to the complainant. They have further stated that the averment of the complainant that the authorized Chevrolet dealer has given an estimation to repair the vehicle at Rs.1,02,716/- is only an estimation done by a dealer who is not a dealer of Chevrolet vehicle and it is silent about the nature and extent of damage if any to the vehicle and it is silent about any reference to the Chevrolet vehicle of the complainant and it is only reflecting the price list for replacing the parts mentioned therein and which cannot be borne by the opposite parties 1 to 3. Further they have stated that the 4th op the insurance company has assessed the damage at Rs.15,697/- only after inspecting the vehicle and paid the said amount to the complainant and therefore the complainant is not entitled for any sum to be awarded, in the matter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In spite of service of notice, the 4th opposite party remained absent throughout the proceeding.
4. Complainant and the opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed their affidavit evidence. Perused the entire records and arguments heard.
5. The points for consideration are:-
-:POINTS:-
(a) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in
service on the part of the opposite parties?
(g) What order?
6. Our findings are:-
Point (A) : In the Affirmative
Point (B) : As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
7. On reading the complaint in conjunction with the documents produced, version and affidavits it is established that the complainant had given his car bearing registration No. MH-12 EX-8817 to the 1st opposite party on 05/08/2010 for transportation from Pune to Bangalore and had paid an advance amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. As per the complainant the vehicle was to be delivered at Bangalore on 09.08.2010, but the vehicle was not delivered on the said date. The opposite parties 1 to 3 in their version have stated that the front bumper, the right side head light and front short of the vehicle were damaged while shifting the car in to the carriage. They have got repaired the vehicle by spending Rs.13,500/- and transported the vehicle and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle. However they have denied that they had assured the complainant that they will deliver the vehicle on 09.08.2010. The opposite parties 1 to 3 have not intimated regarding damage caused to the vehicle, immediately to the complainant. If the opposite party had informed the complainant, then the complainant could have got the vehicle repaired from the authorized dealer under warranty. The opposite party No.3 has not informed the complainant regarding the accident caused to the vehicle of the complainant at the time of shifting the same in to the carriage immediately. Thereby the opposite party No.3 has committed deficiency in service.
8. Further the complainant has requested the opposite party No.3 to provide name of the driver, place of accident, date and time and also a copy of the complaint given to the police. The opposite party vide e-mail dated: 08.09.2010 informed the complainant that the driver name is Raosahib Kahalker, the place of accident is Nigdi, Pune, the date of accident is 08.08.2010 at 7.20 PM. But while forwarding the copy of the complaint which was forwarded by the opposite party No.3 to the complainant in the said complaint it is mentioned that one Sri. Vinod Kumar and Sri.Ramakrishn the employees of the opposite party No.3 ran away with Rs.26,145/- and has not been attending the office for the last four days. That means nothing was mentioned in the said letter regarding accident caused to the vehicle of the complainant. That means the opposite parties has sent copy of this complaint to mislead the complainant which is nothing but unfair trade practice.
9. The complainant has stated that he has taken his vehicle to the authorized dealers once again and they have given an estimation of Rs.1,02,716/- for repair of the vehicle. In this connection the complainant filed an estimation letter as document No.6 which is not readable and the said document cannot be accepted.
10. The complainant has got his vehicle repaired from the authorized dealer at the cost of Rs.65,272/-, out of which the 4th opposite party has paid Rs.15,697/- after assessing the damage caused to the vehicle. The balance amount of Rs.49,575/- has been paid by the complainant. This amount was paid by the complainant because of the accident caused to the vehicle when the said vehicle was being shifted in the carriage by the opposite party No.3, that means the damage was caused due to the negligence of the opposite party No.3 and therefore the opposite parties are liable to pay the said amount of Rs.49,575/-. The complainant in his complaint has also stated that he has suffered some mental agony, torture and for that it is also necessary that he should be compensated suitably. The entire proceedings started due to the negligence and also delay in delivering the vehicle to the complainant as promised. Therefore it is also necessary to grant cost of this proceeding to the complainant. In view of the above if a total amount of Rs.55,000/- is awarded to be paid by the opposite parties 1 to 3 to the complainant we think that will meet the ends of justice. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.55,000/- to the complainant both jointly and severely for the damages caused to the vehicle within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. If the opposite parties 1 to 3 failed to comply with the order mentioned in the above serial No.2 within the time prescribed therein then the opposite parties 1 to 3 shall pay the said amount together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of delivery of the vehicle i.e., 20.08.2010 until payment within 60 days from the date of this order.
4. The opposite parties are also directed to comply to the above said order as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 75 days from the date of this order.
5. Return the extra sets to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 25th Day of January 2012)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
