Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/87/2013

Lakshmi Kumari Balasubrahmanyam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hi-tech Motors Rep by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

S.Srinivasamurthy

27 Aug 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing     :08-07-2013

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:27-08-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Thursday, this the 27^th day of  August, 2015

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                             

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.87/2013

 

Lakshmi Kumari Balsubrahmanyam,

W/o.K. Balasubrahmanyam,

Hindu, Aged about 60 years, Business,

Residing at Flat No.10,

Anjana Apartments, Tekkemitta, Nellore-3.                                       ..… Complainant          

 

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	Hi-Tech Motors, Represented by it’s Branch Manager, Kakuturu Village, Venkatachalam Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District.
2.	VE Commercial Vehicles Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, 102, Industrial Area No.1, Pithampur-454 755, Dhar District, Madhya Pradesh.                                            ..…Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 08-07-2013 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri S. Srinivasa Murthy, advocate for the complainant and                                                             Sri Sk. Akbar, advocate for the opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri  N.S. KUMARASWAMY, MEMBER)

 

           This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties  to deliver Eicher goods carriage  of the complainant bearing chassis No.MC229FRC0DA266306 to the complainant by effecting repairs immediately , damages of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and  further reliefs.

 

2.         The brief averment of the complaint, he purchased Eicher goods carriage  on 14-03-2013 for Rs.10,61,666/- from the 1^st opposite party, who is local dealer  of M/s.Hitech Motors, Kakuture Village, Nellore District and  as first trip, while the vehicle  sent for hire to transport goods for Chennai on 10-04-2013, the said goods carriage met with an accident and to that extent police registered the case and issued an  First Information Report, the said carriage brought to Nellore by tow paying a sum of Rs.14,500/- to the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party issued estimated report for Rs.4,08,997/-  and also supplementary estimate for Rs.21,569/- for repairs after the insurance company asked them to carryout repairs.  The 1^st  opposite party placed order to the 2^nd opposite party to supply spare parts but the 2^nd opposite party supplied wrong spare parts.  On account of the said mistake, the delay caused to repair the vehicle eventhough the complainant paid advance of Rs.50,000/- on 03-05-2013.  On account of delay in repairing the vehicle the complainant suffered loss of Rs.3,000/- per day.  Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and the complaint is filed  seeking relief as prayed for  in the complaint by the complainant.

 

            3.         The 2^nd opposite party filed memo adopting counter of opposite party No.1 and in all particulars.

 

            4.         On the other hand, the opposite parties filed counter denying all the allegations made in the complaint except that of admitting that the complainant purchased Eicher goods  carriage vehicle on 14-03-2013 for Rs.10,61,666/- from the 1^st opposite party and met with an accident at Chennai.  The opposite parties contended that they denied that the vehicle was brought  to Nellore by taking tow charges of Rs.14,500/- but the said amount paid to Sri Selva Vinayagar  Recovery Service for getting the vehicle to Nellore for service.  The complainant did not turn up, up to 03-05-2013 for paying advance  and requested to stop the work up to 20 days until  the insurance surveyor inspected the vehicle.  Further, the opposite parties contended that they order to 2^nd opposite party to supply spare parts but the 2^nd opposite party supplied spare parts which were mis-matched  to the vehicle as it is  latest vehicle  and again on request, they supplied suitable parts finally the vehicle was repaired  after 20 days.  The said repair was done by manmade work but not with machine.  Finally, the vehicle was handedover on 10-07-2013 after duly repaired.  Hence, there is no negligence or latches on their part and complaint may be dismissed  without costs as there is no deficiency on their part.

 

            5.         On behalf of  the complainant, chief affidavit of the complainant is filed as P.W.1 and documents Exs.A1 to A10 marked  and chief affidavits of R.W.1 and R.W.2 filed and Exs.B1 to B4 marked.

 

 

 

            6.         The point for determination would be for consideration is :

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled  for any damages caused due to delay  in repairing the vehicle if so, how much amount the complainant is entitled to?

 

2)          To what relief?

                   

7.         POINT No.1: Heard, the arguments on both sides and perused the entire material on record.  So far as the 1^st relief claimed in the complaint petition after filing the complaint i.e., on 08-07-2013, the vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant on 10-07-2013 as per Gate Pass, which is Ex.B1.  To that extent, a memo dated 06-05-2015 was  filed.  Therefore, there is no need to give any direction to the opposite parties with regard to 1^st relief. 

 

            8.         So far as the claim for  damages of Rs.2,00,000/- is concerned, according to the complainant on account of the delay  that occurred due to the failure of the opposite parties in effecting repairs to the goods vehicle, the opposite parties are liable to pay damages of Rs.75,000/- at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per day for 25 days.  But the 2^nd relief for payment of damages of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony in the prayer is  contrary to the  pleadings of complainant as per para-5.  Hence,  the prayer is  inconsistent to the pleadings.  Before going to the merits of the case we have to observe whether  the claim is appropriate  or not.

 

            9.         The admitted facts are that on 14-03-2013,  the complainant purchased the goods carriage vehicle from the 1^st opposite party and met with an accident on                   10-04-2013.  On account of accident, there was extensive damages  caused to the vehicle of the complainant.  He said vehicle was entrusted to the opposite parties for effecting repairs, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the 1s opposite party towards advance of repair charges on 03-05-2013, which is Ex.A8.  While, according to the complainant there was abnormal delay in effecting repairs to the vehicle  and on account of  the same, the complainant could not put the vehicle in use  and consequently he is suffered loss of Rs.75,000/- at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per day for 25 days. Admittedly, the vehicle sustained extensive damages to effect repairs to such a vehicle, the entire damaged parts  have to be separated from the vehicle.  Thereafter, estimates have to be prepared with regard t the spare parts required for replacement them in the place of damaged parts.  The spare parts have to be secured and the spares so secured must  fit in with a required specifications.  To carryout such activities, it takes  long time everything has to be done with man power and not with any machine.   If any work has to be done with machine the same can be done without any delay.  When the repairs have be  carriedout with man power, it takes more than reasonable time  and as it depends upon the availability of men power.   From the counter filed by the opposite parties, it is clear that the spare parts supplied were not suitable  for replacement and  they have to be changed.  Therefore, it cannot be said that  there was any intentional delay or latches on the part of the opposite parties in effecting repairs.  Further there was no contract, specifying time limit  within which the opposite parties  have agreed to deliver the vehicle duly effecting the repairs  to the same.  Therefore, the claim of the complainant that the opposite parties have agreed to deliver the vehicle within 15 days is not founded any documentary evidence.  In the present case, there was some delay in effecting repairs and there is no inordinate or abnormal delay in effecting repairs. 

 

            10.       It may be that complainant suffered mental agony because vehicle purchased by him with an intention to earn income by hiring the same met with an accident within a month  after the  purchase and on account of the extensive damage suffered by it, it was not road worthy and consequently, he could not hire the same and earn any income.  But such mental agony and sufferings cannot be attributed to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties had they been deligent enough they could have avoided  some   delay.  The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 10-07-2013 much after filing of the complainant i.e., on 08-07-2013. Therefore, there occurred a minimum delay of 15 days.  For this 15 days complainant would be entitled to damages of Rs.3,000/- per day i.e., total sum of Rs.45,000/- for loss of earnings.

 

            11.       The complainant would not be entitled for any compensation or any mental agony and shock as the opposite parties are not responsible for the same.  Therefore, the complainant would be entitled to Rs.45,000/- towards damages only.  Thus, the complainant is decided accordingly.

 

 

 

 

            12.       POINT NO.2: In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and directing the opposite parties  jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five  thousand only) towards damages to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.  In default of payment of the said amount as directed supra, the complainant would be entitled interest on the said amount @ 9 % p.a. from the date of default till the payment. The complainant is also entitled for payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only).

 

           Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  27^th day of  August, 2015.

 

                    Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

10-07-2014

Sri Lakshmi Kumri Balasubrahmanyam, W/o.K.Balasubrahmanyam, Nellore-3 (Affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -	10-07-2014	Sri Gollapudi Siva Kumar, S/o.Subba Rao, Working as Branch Manager in  Hitech Motors, Nellore District (Affidavit filed).
R.W.2  -	10-07-2014	Sri J. Balaji, S/o.S.Jeyaraman,  Madhya Pradesh (Affidavit filed)

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	-	Photocopy of Vat Invoice  No.VS/00739, dated 15-03-2013 in favour of complainant issued by opposite party No.1 and photocopy of registration certificate in favour of complainant issued by  Regional Transport Authroity, Nellore.
Ex.A2  -	-	Photocopy of  E-Seva  receipt   in favour of complainant.
Ex.A3  -	-	Photocopy of   T.P.No.9283 issued by Motor Vehicles Inspector, Gummidipoondi (T.K.), Thiruvallur District.
Ex.A4  -	12-04-2013	Photocopy of    particulars issued by Sri Selva Vinayagar Recovery Service, Chennai-95.
Ex.A5  -	-	Photocopy of  Repairs Estimate given by Hitech Motors
Ex.A6  -	15-04-2013	Photocopy of Repairs Estimate given by Hitech Motors
Ex.A7  -	24-04-2013	Photocopy of Supplementary Estimate issued by Hitech Motors.
Ex.A8  -	03-05-2013	Photocopy of Receipt No.000044 in favour of  complainant issued by Hitech Motors for Rs.50,000/-.
Ex.A9  -	-	Photocopy of  Policy No.1512043112P303133047 in favour of complainant issued by United India Insurance Company Limited, Nellore.
Ex.A10 -	10-04-2013	Photocopy of First Information Report No.C3100491 issued by Tamil Nadu Police,

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex.B1  -	10-07-2013	Photocopy of Gate Pass No.593  details.
Ex.B2  -	-	Photocopy of Job Card Invoice Credit details and  Vehicle History etc., details  in favour of complainant issued by Hitech Motors.
Ex.B3  -	-	Photocopy of Job Card details  in favour of complainant issued by Hitech Motors.
Ex.B4  -	-	Photo copies of five photos  relating to vehicle.

                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                        Id/-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri S. Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate, K.V. Agraharam, Trunk Road, Nellore.
2.	Sri Sk. Akbar, Advocate, Nellore.

 

Date when free copy was issued: