Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/23/2015

Cherukupalli Kailash, S/o. Dr.C.V. Raman - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Balaji Agencies and Industries - Opp.Party(s)

V.Rajagopal

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:25.06.2015

Order Date: 01.12.2015

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

TUESDAY THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

 

C.C.No.23/2015

 

Between

 

Cherukupalli Kailash,

S/o. Dr.C.V.Raman,

D.No.248, Varadaraja Nagar,

K.T.Road,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                                          … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         M/s. Balaji Agencies and Industries,

            Mahindra Authorised Sales and Service,

            Plot No.198, Auto Nagar,

            Nellore – 524 004.

 

2.         M/s. Balaji Agencies and Industries,

            Mahindra Authorised Sales and Service,

            Survey No.192/3B/1C, 2C and 3C,

            Renigunta,

            Chittoor By-pass Road,

            Tirupati,

            Chittoor District.                                                                  …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 04.11.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.V.Rajagopal, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.N.Rajagopal, counsel for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986 by the complainant for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to carry out the necessary repairs and services to the vehicle in issue and return the same to complainant, 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience, hardship, mental agony and loss caused to the complainant as a result of negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-   that the complainant being renowned spiritual teacher in yoga, pranic and energy healing, and running Yoga Ashram, on 07.10.2011 purchased a Goods Carriage i.e. Mahindra GENIO DC VX 2 WD BSIII, from opposite party No.1, for a consideration of Rs.6,01,724/-. The registration number of the vehicle is AP 03 TB 0702. The vehicle is used only for the transport of daily needs of the Ashram. The vehicle was driven by a single driver by name K.Prasad, right from the beginning and the vehicle is maintained properly and also getting service promptly. The vehicle got service in the month of February 2015 from opposite party No.1, by paying Rs.1,00,853/- towards running repairs and also by paying Rs.10,473/- towards panel / service repairs.

            3.  On 16.04.2015, complainant took the vehicle to opposite party No.2 for general service. After effecting service, the vehicle was returned to complainant on 18.04.2015, after collecting Rs.11,998/-. On 21.04.2015, when the driver took the vehicle out for normal use and when the vehicle was run for about 50 k.m., the vehicle was suddenly broke down and did not run / start. Immediately, the driver of the vehicle contacted opposite party No.1 and narrated the problem with the vehicle. Atlast, opposite party No.2 also informed about the problem developed in the vehicle, then opposite party No.2, sent service personal, who after examining the vehicle informed the driver that the engine was seized. The driver communicated the same to the complainant. Inspite of changing some spare-parts viz. bolts, nuts and engine oil by the service personal of opposite part No.2, as intended by them, the vehicle could not run. Though regular services were carried out periodically, that too, a couple of days back, seize of engine unexpectedly is only due to defective service and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and due to negligence on the part of the service personal of opposite party No.2. The complainant got issued notice on 01.05.2015 calling upon opposite parties to take-up necessary repairs and service to the vehicle at their cost and also called upon the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages, inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant. The said notice sent to opposite party No.2 was returned un-served with endorsement wrong address, whereas opposite party No.1 gave reply on 12.05.2015 with false and frivolous contentions such as vehicle maintenance is bad and driver of the vehicle is in-experienced. Hence the complaint.

            4.  Opposite party No.2 filed its written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.1, contending that, because of the unskilled driver of the vehicle only troubles were developed in the vehicle, who has no control over his driving skill. The welfare of the vehicle depends on the application of mind and presence of mind of the driver. Repairs to the vehicle in dispute, in the month of February 2015 and charging Rs.1,00,853/- and Rs.10,473/- were admitted by the opposite parties. Paras. 3, 5 and 6 were about the driver of the vehicle and duties of the driver, and in Paras. 8 to 33 are about functioning and reputation of opposite party No.2, employees, service personal and their skills were discussed. Opposite party No.2, also discussed on the duties of the driver. The wind shield of the vehicle has broken due to the negligence of the custodian of the vehicle. That opposite party No.2 and its staff as well as opposite party No.1 were promptly and sincerely attended over the vehicle and got changed some nuts and bolts along with engine oil, but due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, it again sustained repairs. 

            5.  The opposite parties further contended that because of the vacuum pump, the air generates frequently, here rotation metabolism occupies generally. If vacuum pump un-rotates, the breaks will not function. The bolts set of vacuum pump always very tightly one. If the vacuum pump fails to work, automatically, the oil level decreased, where the indicator will indicate to aware the drier to take necessary steps to get out from the subsequent danger point. There at driver’s cabin two types indicators will glow brightly to overwhelm the driver from the danger. But the driver should be alert and at keen watching sense, here K.Prasad, driver of the vehicle done the mistake. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

            6.  Both parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits as P.W.1 and R.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 for the complainant and Exs.B1 to B15 for the opposite parties. Neither party submitted any authorities in support of their respective cases.

            7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the

                  opposite parties?  

            (ii)  Whether the repairs / troubles that were developed in the vehicle were due

                  to lack of skill on the part of the driver of the vehicle?

            (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

            (iv)  To what relief?

            8.  Point No.(i):- in order to answer this point, it is pertinent to mention the specific allegations made by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2 is that on 16.04.2015 complainant took the vehicle bearing No.AP 03 TB 0702 to opposite party No.2 for general service. Opposite party No.2 effected service, collected Rs.11,998/- from the complainant and delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 18.04.2015 admittedly.

            9.  Thereafter on 21.04.2015, when the vehicle was taken to normal use by its driver and when the vehicle was run for about 50 k.m. distance, it was suddenly broke down. On intimation, the service personal of opposite party No.2 attended on the vehicle, replaced some bolts and nuts and changed engine oil, but the vehicle could not run. The service personal of opposite party No.2 informed the driver of the vehicle, that the engine was seized due to leakage of engine oil. This aspect was not denied by the opposite parties. The contents of Ex.A3 and Exs.B8 to B12 prove these facts. In para.11, sub-para.2 of written version filed by the opposite parties admitted as follows. “It is true as per the allegations made by the complainant that the vehicle been suddenly broke down and stopped due to the vacuum pumps three nuts were loosen and disconnected. The complainant says that the vehicle run approximately up to 50 k.m. Here the expert mechanics of opposite party No.2 workshop declares the vehicle has been run more than 100 k.m. It means in between the way it is some miracle or high handedness been occupied to remove / loose the nuts of the vacuum pump in which cause of action been lead to the seizure of vehicle engine. Here, who will be the black sheep?. Technically the opposite party No.2 is not the black sheep, where opposite party No.1 is in no way concerned by the area and the operative jurisdiction. The opposite parties further contended that the driver Mr.K.Prasad, can remove / loose the bolts of such vacuum pump or somebody else to disturb the complainant inhumanly, to find fault, the complainant has to use his textual and contextual mind actually”. So, the seizure of engine of the vehicle also admitted by the opposite parties. Just two days prior to such seizure on 21.04.2015, the vehicle was produced before opposite party No.2 for general check-up and service and the same was carried out by opposite party No.2, for which a sum of Rs.11,998/- was also collected from the complainant under Ex.A3. As per Ex.A3, the description of work attended is shown in 14 items viz. 1) power window switch main ingenio, 2) fuel filter cartridge –NEF CRDe, 3) Kit Pad Disc Brake, 4) Copper washer, 5) Kit Oil Filter Element, 6) Miximile Ultra Cool – 1 ltr, 7) Miximile FEO – 1 ltr., 8) Waster Packet, 9) Brake Shoes R and R Two Wheels, 10) Cooling System – Flush, 11) Power Window Mech R and R (1 window), 12) Fuel Filter R and R, 13) Remove & Refitting, and 14) Water wash. These are the works attended for which opposite party No.2 has charged Rs.11,998/- on 18.04.2015. As per Ex.B11 dt:17.04.2015 also reveals the same as shown in Ex.A3. As per Ex.B10 dt:16.04.2015, the vehicle bearing No.AP 03 TB 0702, was brought to opposite party No.2 and demanded repairs / customer verbatim as follows – 1) washing and cleaning, 2) oil service,        3) side mirrors are not working properly, 4) general check-up and 5) 4 wheels break check-up. The items mentioned in Ex.B10 are varies from Ex.B11. When the above items were attended by the service personal of opposite party No.2 between 16.04.2015, 17.04.2015 and 18.04.2015 and the vehicle was delivered to complainant on 18.04.2015 and the vehicle was taken to normal use on 21.04.2015 i.e. with a gap of two days in between, all of a sudden the vehicle was broke down due to leakage of oil and engine was seized.

            10.  The driver of the vehicle is not expert to meddle with the engine of the vehicle, engine oil, brake shows, brakes, some nuts and bolts, as he is not expertise in the mechanism of the vehicle.  Even according to the contents of the written version filed by the opposite parties, service personal available with opposite party No.2 are experts, skilled and eminent with bilingual orientation. If such an excellent service personal effected service on the vehicle, no one can expect that all of a sudden some major problem, such as seizure of engine of the vehicle will develop. As could be seen from para.11 of the written version filed by the opposite parties, on 21.04.2015, the vehicle was brought to opposite party No.2 by its driver K.Prasad, to have repairs pertaining to 1) wind shield glass replacement, 2) side mirror malfunction, 3) the oil service, 4) the breaks check-up, 5) general check-up, and not for the vacuum pump service. It is for the opposite party No.2, to say by what time the vehicle was brought to his workshop with specific complaints in the vehicle on 21.04.2015. The vehicle was broke down all of a sudden at a distance of 50 k.m. away from the town, where the vehicle was stopped abruptly. When the driver of the vehicle asked the service personal of opposite party No.2, to take the vehicle to the workshop of opposite party No.2, they bluntly refused to do so. However, at last the vehicle was towed to the workshop of opposite party No.2. If the engine was not seized, question of towing the vehicle does not arise. If that is the case, bringing the vehicle to the workshop of opposite party No.2 by its driver, for the above said repairs does not arise. However, the opposite parties did not mention anywhere in their written version or in their chief affidavit or in their written arguments that the repairs were effected on the vehicle on 21.04.2015 or any date subsequent there to and delivered back the vehicle to the complainant. So, the allegation made by the complainant that still the vehicle is with opposite party No.2 can be believed. Keeping the vehicle with opposite party No.2 right from 21.04.2015 till today i.e. for about 7 months amounts to negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

            11.  When the vehicle was admittedly got repaired and services were also effected on 16.04.2015 and 17.04.2015 and the same was delivered back to complainant on 18.04.2015 admittedly, within 3 days thereafter the vehicle again broke down enroute. As such there is defect in the service, otherwise the vehicle could have run properly. But for each and every defect or repair in the vehicle, the opposite parties throwing blame on the driver of the vehicle, who is running the vehicle, managing the vehicle and maintaining the vehicle since the date of its purchase on 07.10.2011. In detail, the same driver is continued to drive the vehicle in dispute for the last 4 years preceding the date of break down. So, at this juncture, that too, when the vehicle was broke down and created lot of inconvenience and the service personal of opposite party No.2 themselves declares that the engine of the vehicle was seized, the driver cannot be blamed. So, we are of the opinion that because of deficiency in service on the part of the service personal of opposite party No.2 only, the vehicle was broke down on 21.04.2015, though its service was effected just 3 days prior to the date of break down. The opposite parties in their written version from para.8 to 33 continued to appraise the company, its performance, quality of their staff, excellency and efficiency of their service personal etc. In the month of February 2015 also admittedly the vehicle was got repaired and services were also effected and a sum of Rs.1,00,853/- under receipt dt:14.02.2015 and another sum of Rs.10,473/- in another receipt dt:14.02.2015 were collected from the complainant. Two months thereafter again the vehicle was produced for service and services were effected by opposite party No.2 and on the third day of such services i.e. on 16.04.2015 and 17.04.2015 major defect was developed in the vehicle. So, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties           1 and 2. Accordingly this point is answered.

            12. Point No.(ii):-  to answer this point, we have to state that in view of our discussion in point No.1, and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that driver of the vehicle by name K.Prasad, will not be held responsible for the defects, repairs, problems and troubles that were cropped-up in the vehicle. The opposite parties 1 and 2 thrown the blame on the driver of the vehicle without there being any iota of evidence, as such their allegations remained baseless. Simply tool kit is available with the vehicle, it can be used when the tyres are punctured and like simple and minimum needs, but not to remove the bolts and nuts in the engine, loosen the bolts of the vacuum pump and also removing bolts and nuts in order to make the leakage of engine oil etc. In the written version, it is also mentioned by the opposite parties that because of tightening the bolts and nuts of the vacuum pump, the engine oil was leaked due to friction, because of which breaks were also troubled, but these  all can be done in the hands of mechanics but not by the driver of the vehicle. So, simply making some allegations against the driver for the major defects that were developed in the vehicle cannot be sustained. Therefore, in the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the driver will not be held responsible for the repairs / troubles cropped-up in the vehicle. Accordingly this point is answered.

            13.  Point No.(iii):-  to answer this point, we have to state that the vehicle was promptly produced before opposite party No.2 for effecting regular and periodical services even after free expiry of services period, since the vehicle was on road for attending the needs of the Yoga Ashram, being maintained by the complainant admittedly. Right from 07.10.2011 the vehicle was on road after getting repairs and periodical services from opposite party No.2. When the vehicle was repaired and also effected services over it on ‘payment service’ and collected Rs.11,998/- on 18.04.2015 as shown in Exs.B11 and B12, one cannot expect that the vehicle will get some more problems on the second day or third day of such service, unless there is some major accident or accidental fall or deficiency in service etc. It is not the case of either party that the vehicle was subjected to any accident on 21.04.2015. Therefore, no one can expect such break down or deceptive service on the part of opposite parties. In view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant was made to suffer by the opposite parties by keeping his vehicle with opposite party No.2 from 21.04.2015 till today and therefore the complainant is entitled for the damages from opposite parties. Nowhere the opposite parties mentioned that the vehicle bearing No. AP 03 TB 0702 of the complainant was not with opposite party No.2 and the said vehicle was delivered to the complainant at any date subsequent to 21.04.2015 after effecting necessary repairs. As such, keeping the vehicle with opposite party No.2 for about 7 months even without effecting repairs itself amounts to negligence on the part of opposite party No.2, for which opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.

            14.  Point No.(iv):- In view of our discussion on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the return of the vehicle after getting repairs by the opposite parties 1 and 2 with their own expenses and also he is entitled for compensation and complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties         1 and 2 to carry out necessary repairs and service to the vehicle bearing No. AP 03 TB 0702 within a week with their expenses and return the same to complainant on or before 07.12.2015. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for the inconvenience, hardship,  mental agony and loss caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 and 2 also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 1^st day of December, 2015.

                                                                                             

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: Cherukupalli Kailash (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

 

RW-1: Bunga KiranKumar  (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of invoice filed on behalf of the complainant. Dt: 07.10.2011.
	Payments receipts and tax invoices in Original. Dt: 14.02.2015 Receipt Nos. 10683 and 10684 issued by the Opposite Party No.2 on behalf of Opposite Party No.1.Dt: 14.02.2015.
	Invoice and receipt in Original issued by the Opposite Party No.2 for the general services Dt: 18.04. 2015.
	Receipt Dt: 21.04.2015 filed on behalf of Complainant.  Receipt No.550 for purchase of Engine Oil and Bolts.
	Office copy of the Legal Notice, Dt: 01.05.2015 with acknowledgement, Dt: 02.05.2015.
	Reply Notice issued by Opposite Party 1, Dt:  12.05.2015.
	Returned Notice sent to Opposite Party No.2.Dt: 08.05.2015.
	Vehicle admission slip issued by Opposite Party No.2 filed on behalf of the Complainant, Dt: 23.04.2015 with time 4.40 pm issued by Opposite Party No.2 stating for problem and Check up. Sl.No.24725(Customer Copy).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Maintenance Manual in Original.
2.	Vehicle History Papers in Original. Registration No. AP03TB0702. Dt: 10.07.2015.
3.	Photo copy of Repair Manual of the Mahindra GENIO Vehicle.
4.	Photo (Color photo copy) of the Vacuum Pump.
5.	Photo (Color photo copy) of the Vacuum Pump2.
6.	Reply Notice (Photo Copy) to the Complainants Advocate by the Opposite Party No.2.
7.	SMS Given to the Complainant by the C.E.O. of the Opposite Party No.2 (Photo Copy).
8.	Satisfaction Note (Photo Copy). Dt: 18.04.2015.
9.	Service Advisor copy of Vehicle Admission Slip (Photo copy). Sl.No.23845 Dt: 16.04.2015.
10.	Photo copy of Repair Order.  Repair Order No: RO16A000275. Dt: 16.04.2015.
11.	Photo copy of Present Invoice Papers. Dt: 17.04.2015.
12.	Photo copy of The Tax Invoice Paper. Dt: 18.04.2015.
13.	Photo copy of The Telephone Bills. FOLIO: NLR1326384. Dt: 24.02.2015.
14.	Photo copy of the P.S.F.  Papers.
15.	Photo copy of Value Added Tax Registration Certificate. Dt: 20.02.2015.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                                                         President

             // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

             Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                       2. The opposite parties.