Date of Filling :03.06.2014
Date of Disposal: 22.09.2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR
PRESENT: THIRU. S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M., … PRESIDENT
TMT. S.SUJATHA,B.Sc., … MEMBER-I
CC.33/2014
Wednesday, the Day 22nd day of September 2015
E.Arun
S/o Elango
No.23/24, Sadhasivam Mehta street,
Aminjikarai, Chennai -600 029. …Complainant
/Vs/
The Manager,
K.R.S. Car Care,
No.78, Poonamalle High Road,
Maduravoyal (Near TUCS station stop)
Chennai - 600 095. …Opposite Party
….
This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 08.09.2015 in
the presence Thiru.C.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate on the side of the complainant and Thiru.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate for the opposite party and upon hearing arguments on the side of the complainant and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, to direct the opposite parties to repay the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest, to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards damage/repair cost and to pay Rs.2,75,000/- towards for causing loss and mental agony due to deficiency in service and with cost of litigation expenses.
The Brief averments of the complaint as follows:
- In the month of June 2012, the complainant’s vehicle namely TATA
SAFARI bearing registration No.TN50X 2466, met with an accident. On 24.06.2012 the said vehicle is handed over to the opposite party for complete service. After inspecting the vehicle the opposite party have assured that the vehicle will be delivered to the complainant within 3 months and informed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards estimate amount for repair. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards advance and the opposite party have issued receipt for the same vide receipt dated 24.06.2012. Subsequently on request of the opposite party the complainant paid another sum of Rs.30,000/- vide receipt dated 15.09.2012.
- After three months he asked the opposite party to deliver the vehicle
but the opposite party had requested another two months (i.e. November 2012) to deliver the vehicle. Thereafter the complainant made communication with the opposite party through phone and enquired about the vehicle frequently but every time the opposite party requested time and keep on dragging to the vehicle, the complainant went to the opposite party’s service centre several times, while asking the reasons for such delay the opposite party having the pattern of giving impractical and evasive answers to the complainant which caused very much mental agony to the complainant.
- That, after one year i.e., August 2013 the opposite party have informed
that the vehicle is ready for delivery. After the long depression on 23.08.2013 the complainant went to the opposite party’s service station and got shocked because this vehicle was covered with full dust and the service has completed only 20%. The complainant came to understand that the opposite party still not completed the service. After seen the vehicle’s position the complainant got huge pain dusts. The complainant asked the vehicle key for test drive and tried to start the vehicle but it was not started. Thereafter, the opposite party directed his workers and though they are also tried to start the vehicle but all the efforts are failed. The complainant understands that the opposite party simply kept the vehicle under their service station without proper service.
- Finally the complainant paid another sum of Rs.45,000/- vide cash
receipt dated 23.08.2013 and after realized the mistake the opposite party given gate pass. Then he taken out the vehicle from the service station and parked the same on the road side. On the next day morning i.e., 24.08.2013 the vehicle was toe to the “Concorde Motors” service station from Thriuverkaadu to Ambattur for complete service.
5. That after inspecting the said vehicle, the Concorde Motores have issued the repair estimate for a sum of Rs.3,77,000/-and informed that the previous repair was done by the opposite party station is not proper, which was given ultimate shock to the complainant. So he requested the Concorde Service motors to make the vehicle for running condition. The opposite party is authorized by the TATA Motors but they failed to do their service and caused severe damage to the vehicle and they caused mental agony and hardship. Hence this complaint is filed.
The contention of the written version of the opposite party has brief as follows
6. The opposite party denies the various allegations made in the complaint by the complainant except those that are specifically admitted herein. It is admitted that the complainant’s vehicle namely TATA SAFARI bearing registration No.TN 50X 2466 met with accident and handed over the said vehicle in total loss condition for repairs on 24.06.2014.
7. The vehicle does not have warranty and it had run 75,400 Kms as per the meter in the said vehicle. On inspection the opposite party advised the complaint to sell off/dispose the vehicle as it is in total loss condition. However, the complainant expressed that he got sentimental value towards the vehicle as it saved the lives of the occupants at the time of accident. The opposite party categorically deny the averments stated in paragraph 3 of the complainant that vehicle has been handed over for complete service. Actually the vehicle has been handed over for rectifying the repairs caused due to massive accident.
8. The opposite party has not given any time limit for rectifying the defects. However, based on the inspection the opposite party estimated the cost of the spares and the labours charges around 3 lakhs approximately and informed the same to the complainant. It has been informed to the complainant that the during the process of repairing the vehicle and replacing the damaged part if the quotation/estimate and the complainant is liable to pay that the amount. The complainant also accepted the same. The vehicle was ready for delivery during August 2013. It was duly intimated to the complainant.
9. The opposite party submits that they raised a final bill for Rs.3,76,114/- towards the spare parts and labour. The complainant has not paid this amount. He paid only Rs.45,000/- to avoid the balance payment and to escape from his liability, he has filed this present complaint. The other allegations are baseless and vexatious. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. At this juncture, the vital point of determination before this Forum is:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged in the complaint?
- To what other reliefs, the complainant entitled to?
11.Point 1: According to the case of the complainant is that the complainant
had handed over the vehicle for complete services to the opposite party in the month of June 2012, but the opposite party delivered the vehicle on 23.08.2013 without running condition, which amount to deficiency in service and un trade practice and therefore the complainant was constrained to file this complaint.
12. While so, the opposite party contended that it was very difficult to repair the vehicle since all the inner parts of the vehicle have been damaged and to separate parts itself took three months time and apart from that the opposite party have repaired the vehicle in running condition and it was ready for delivery during the August 2013 and the same was duly intimated to the complainant and therefore the averment made in the complaint are all false. In fact, the complainant has paid only Rs.45,000/- in spite of the final bill of Rs.3,76,114/- and in order to avoid the balance amount and escape this complaint have been filed without any basis. It is further submitted that the complainant is not at all entitled to file this complaint since, the said vehicle registered in TN.50 X2466 was in the name of one Mr. Mathiyazhagan, not in the name of the complainant and therefore this complaint is not at all maintainable legally and thereby this complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.
13. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, the first point to be decided is whether this complainant is entitled to file this complaint before this Forum. The learned counsel for the opposite party would submit that in the R.C.Book, Insurance Certificate and the Tax Invoice one Mr.T.Mathiyazhagan mentioned as owner of the said vehicle and further submitted that some of the documents viz. Exhibit A3 series filed, for name transfer of the vehicle to the name of the complainant, but they all irrelevant. Not only that, till this date, the complainant has not taken any steps to transfer the name of the owner to his name and it clearly reveals that the above said vehicle still stands in the name of one Mr.Mathiyazhagan and if it so, this complaint is liable to be dismissed for that score alone.
14. At the outset, on going through the complaint as well as the proof affidavit of the complainant it is stated clearly that this complainant is the owner of the vehicle. There is no mentioning about the purchase of the said vehicle TN.50 X 2466 by this complainant from one Mr.Mathiyazhagan, who is the real owner of the about the said vehicle. If actually the complainant has purchased above the said vehicle, it is an obligation of the complainant to aver the above said fact in the complaint, but the complainant failed to do so, which clearly reveals the fact that the complainant has not moved this Forum with clean hands, as rightly pointed out by the opposite party.
15. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the Exhibit A3 and A4 series though they are the document to show about the purchase of the vehicle by this complainant, out of which Exhibit A3, the advance receipt was in the name of one Mr.SenthilKumar, s/o Mani, not in the name of the complainant and also there is some blank. Whereas, in the insurance transfer, sales receipt and authorization letter, the complainant name is mentioned, but the relevant columns are kept blank. Similarly in Exhibit A4 series, Form 29, Form 30 and Form 60 except the signature of one Mr.Mathiyazhagan, the entire forms are unfilled one. Such being so, it is crystal clear that no documents filed by the complainant before this Forum to show about any name transfer of the said vehicle. It has been established further in Exhibit A2, the registration certificate and the insurance certificate, which stands only in the name of Mr. Mathiyazhagan.
16. Moreover, Exhibit B1 and B2 also issued only the name of above said Mathiyazhagan, not in the name of the complainant. From these above documents and other facts, it is crystal clear that this complainant is not the owner of the said vehicle bearing the No.TN.50 X 2466 till date and the complainant has not at all taken any steps so far to transfer the said vehicle to his name through competent authority as prescribed under Motor Vehicles Act. More so, there is no valid explanation placed by the complainant before this Forum in this regard. Therefore, as rightly pointed out that in respect of the said vehicle, this complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and thereby the complainant is not entitled to file this complaint under the said Act.
17. In furtherance, on going through the evidence and documents the
complainant has not produced any document to show that the said vehicle was handed over for further service to make the vehicle in running condition to the concord Motors. If it is filed, then only it can be easily to compare the actual works done and replacement of spare parts with that of the opposite party’s service station. So, in this aspect also this complainant has not come forward with relevant documents to prove this case.
18. In the light of the above facts and observations made by this Forum, it
is crystal clear that this complainant has not at all proved his case both factually and legally. Therefore, this Forum without any hesitation to hold that this complaint is not at all maintainable. Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.
Point 2: In view of the conclusion arrived in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and thus this point no.2 is answered accordingly.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, correctly by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 22nd September 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of Documents filed by the complainant
Ex.A1/Dt. : Xerox copy of the Registration certificate and Insurance copy of
the vehicle TN50X 2466
Ex.A2/Dt.07.12.2011: Xerox copy of the Advance receipt and sale receipt of the vehicle.
Ex.A3/Dt. : Xerox copy of the series of payment receipts.
Ex.A4/Dt. : Xerox copy of the Tax Invoice Bill issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A5/Dt.24.08.2013: Xerox copy of the repair estimate and job slip.
Ex.A6/Dt.12.09.2013: Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by complainant’s counsel to
the opposite party.
Ex.A7/Dt.21.09.2013: Xerox copy of the letter sent by the opposite party to the
complainant.
Ex.A8/Dt. : The Xerox copy of the Tax Invoice issued by concord Motors
counsel to the complainants.
Ex.A9/Dt.07.02.2014: The Xerox copy of the Invoice Bill issued by Sri Balaji
Associates.
List of documents of the opposite party:
Ex.B1/Dt.28.02.2013: Copy of the Tax Invoice given by the K.R.S. Care
Ex.B2/Dt.17.05.2013: Copy of the Tax Invoice given by the K.R.S. Care
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
