BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 29th day of September 2011 Filed on : 18-11-2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 603/2010
Between
Reena Saju, : Complainant
Kuttichira house, (party-in-person)
Thirumarady P.O., l
Muvattupuzha.
And
M/s. Geeyem Motors (P) Ltd. : Opposite party
N.H. 47, Byepass, (By Adv. Aswin Gopakumar,
Nettoor P.O., Kochi-682 040. Shafik Abdulkhadir Associates
XXVI/117A1, Lisie Hospital Road, Cochin-682 018)
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
The following simple facts are behind the complaint.
The complainant is the owner of Trevara car. She entrusted the vehicle for replacement of the gear box assembly. But it was returned only after a delay of 38 days. Her case is that she suffered a loss of 1500 per day as the vehicle was being plied as taxi. Therefore she urges on the Forum to direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 57,000/- as compensation to cover the loss, she had incurred and costs of the proceedings.
2. Opposite party filed version refuting the contentions of the complainant. They are of the view that the complainant is not a consumer because the replacement was effected free of cost after the expiry of the warranty period. The delay was caused due to some protracted correspondence exchanged between the sales division of the manufacturer and the opposite party. Some delay was caused in the procurement of the spare parts. For the above reasons opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint, since the same is devoid of merit.
3. No oral evidence for complainant. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on her side. Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of opposite party. Both counsel were heard.
4. The points at issue are
i. Whether complainant is a consumer
ii. Whether the delay is justified?
iii. What are reliefs permissible?
5. The heart and soul of the complaint is that the complainant had incurred loss to the tune of Rs.57,000/- @ 1500 per day for 38 days occasioned due to the delay caused by the opposite party in returning the vehicle after replacement of gear box assembly. She would be satisfied if the aforesaid sum along with interest is paid to her by the opposite party together with, costs of the proceedings.
Exts A3 and A4 would show that the disputed vehicle is under the ownership of the complainant and is permitted by the authorities to ply it as contract carriage. The complainant alleges that she had entrusted the vehicle for replacement of gear box assembly. As
Ext. A2 would indicate it was only on 29-10-2010 the vehicle was returned after replacement thus causing a long delay of 38 days.
In the version it is contended that the replacement was done beyond the period of warranty and hence it was only a gratuitous act disentitling the complainant to make any complaint as a consumer. We think there is merit in the contentions. Of course it is incumbent upon the authorized service centre to repair the vehicle as and when the purchaser of vehicle approaches for the same because that forms part of the terms of the contract of sale. But when the service is rendered free of cost, it is gratuitous and therefore the complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer.
Further, from the angle of merit of the case also, we do not think that the complainant would succeed in view of the explanation given by the opposite party for such a delay. In paragraph 3 of the version they have clearly narrated the ground of delay. It is quite natural to persuade the top management of the sales division of the manufacturer company to fall in line with their request to consider it as a special case. Also it is quite natural that some time would elapse for correspondence and dispatch of spare parts and such other procedure. This contention has not been disputed by the complainant. Therefore we think that there is nothing wrong in assuming that a span of 38 days is not an undue delay in delivery of the vehicle after replacement of a vital defective part of the vehicle.
Even if it is admitted for a moment that there was deficiency in service for the sake of argument, then also no material has been produced before the Forum to show the quantum of loss suffered by the complainant. Rs. 57,000/- is only a fanciful figure arrived at on speculative calculation. For the reasons more than one as set out above, conclusion is inescapable that the complaint deserves dismissal.
6. Accordingly we dismiss the complaint for the aforesaid reasons.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of September 2011
