BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 434/2015 Filed on 17/09/2015
Dated: 30..09..2016
Complainant:
P. Unnikrishnan Nair, Dwaraka, Bhagavathynada-P.O., Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 501.
(Party in person)
Opposite party:
M/s Kairaly Ford, MGF Building, Vallakkadavu, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 008.
(By Advs. A. Yarshad & Anu Yarshad)
This C.C having been heard on 05..08..2016, the Forum on 30..09..2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. P. SUDHIR, PRESIDENT:
Complainant’s case is that the opposite party is the authorised dealer for the sale and service of Ford cars in Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant purchased a new Ford car, top model with full options Fiesta 1.5 TDCi Titanium by paying INR 11,59,638/- from the opposite party on 27/12/2011. On 04/09/2014 the complainant while driving through the Kakkammoola road, the car suddenly stopped. It was heavily raining at that time. The complainant tried several times to start the engine but failed. Immediately the complainant contacted the service centre at Vallakkadavu, Thiruvananthapuram for assistance. One service person was sent and he after inspecting the car, suggested taking it to the service centre. The company arranged crane and carried it to the service centre by afternoon. For this, the dealer, who is also running the service centre, billed the complainant INR 2500/-. The car was under warranty period up to 26/12/2014 including extended warranty. The very next day, on 05/09/2014 the complainant visited the service centre and he observed that the car was put in open space and not in the service yard. The complainant requested the opposite party to take care of the car properly but was ignored by the opposite party. The car continued to lie in the marshy, wet land for many days. On 19/09/2014 the opposite party informed the complainant that they checked the air-filter and found that water has entered the engine and they are not able to start it so far. The opposite party then suggested that the whole engine can be removed, disassembled, clean individually and reassemble the engine. The opposite party informed that these cannot be done with warranty and advised the complainant to claim through insurance. The opposite party made an estimate for INR 4,44,012/- and was submitted to the Reliance Insurance Company, the insurer of the car. The complainant was also asked to submit the original RC book, driving license and insurance certificate for this purpose. On putting the claim with the insurer, insurance surveyor came to the service centre, took photographs of the vehicle and the opposite party took the vehicle inside the garage for repair work. The claim of INR 4,44,012 from the insurance company was rejected by the insurance company as they found that the amount was exaggerated and prepared with ulterior motive of cheating the complainant and the insurance company. In October 2014, after breaking the engine into parts, the opposite party informed the complainant that some parts are not available and the whole engine needs replacement. The opposite party could have done it as the vehicle was under warranty period. The opposite party demanded INR 2,03,823/- for the work. This shows the ulterior motives of opposite party in making the estimate as INR 4,44,012 for submission to insurance company. After agreeing to make the payment, which was agreed upon pressure, the work was not taken up by the opposite party. The complainant paid INR 50,000 on 05/11/2014. By December, 2014 the company informed that the vehicle is ready for delivery. The complainant made the final payment of INR 1,33,823/- on 13/12/2014 also under pressure and took the delivery of the vehicle. There were some exorbitant charges projected in the bill and when questioned, the opposite party gave a discount of INR 20,000/-. The opposite party told that a new engine is fixed and the old engine number is engraved in the new one which is totally illegal to the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant approached the insurance company for claiming the paid amount, but was turned down by the company on the ground that if water went into the engine it needs only cleaning which can be done worth INR1000. The agency further told the complainant that hundreds of vehicles parked near Thampanoor Railway Station were covered with water on a rainy day and no such incidence of replacing engine was heard about. However the insurance company paid the complainant INR 23326./-. This was a clear case of taking undue amount from a customer by putting him to pressure. The job which could have been completed in one day was dragged for months to show that the work was not simple. Whenever the complainant visited the opposite party, the vehicle was found lying in some corner and nobody was working on it. The complainant started using the vehicle regularly, but is facing frequent breakdowns after the repair. Breakdowns are informed to the company and the history of breakdown is as given below:
Date of break down | Date of Delivery by the Company |
| | |
22/12/14 at Veli | 23-12-2014 |
28/12/14 at Veli | 31-12-2014 |
01/01/15 at Nemom | 08-01-2015 |
09/01/15 at Chakkai | 22-01-2015 |
28/01/15 at All Saints Junction | 30-01-2015 |
02/02/15 at Chakkai | 10-02-2015 |
The act of the opposite party was with ulterior motives and has caused mental agony and monitory loss to the complainant.
2. Notice sent to opposite party, opposite party appeared and this Forum granted 4 postings for filing version even on imposing cost, but opposite party not paid cost and not filed version. Opposite party set exparte.
3. Issues:
(i) Whether there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?
4. Issues (i) & (ii): Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Exts. P1 to P7 marked. Since there is no contra evidence to peruse we believe the statement of complainant and proceed with the evidence in hand. We are of the opinion that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the side of opposite party. Complainant has not produced any document to show the history of repeated breakdowns. Since the opposite party have no contest we are of the opinion that opposite party shall be directed to pay Rs. 1,83,823/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 29/04/2014 till realization and Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,500/- towards cost of this proceedings..
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay the complainant Rs. 1,83,823/- with interest @ 9% per annum on 29/11/2014 till realization and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,500/- towards cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of September, 2016.
Sd/-P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-R. SATHI : MEMBER
Ad. Sd/-LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. 434/2015
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : NIL
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of Quotation / Proforma Invoice of Kairali Ford dated 08/12/2011
P2 : Copy of Tax Invoice dated 27/12/2011 of Kairali Ford.
P3 : Copy of the RC Book of Unnikrishnan Nair
P4 : Copy of estimation details of Fiesta dated 19/09/2014
P5 : Copy of the cash receipt of MGF Group dated 05/11/2014
P6 : Copy of the cash receipt of MGF Group
P7 : Copy of Repair Order Billing of Kairali Ford dated 29/11/2014
III. Opposite party’s witness : N I L
IV. Opposite party’s documents : N I L
Sd/-PRESIDENT
Ad.
