Date of filing:  22.03.2017

Date of Disposal: 25.05.2023

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,      BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF MAY, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 448/2017

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Sri. P.G. Ramesh,

S/o. P.V. Govindaiah Naidu,

Aged About 53 Years,

Practicing Advocate

R/at: A213, A Block,

Majestic Residency,

Tavarekere Main Road,

(Rep. by Sri.Venkatesha, Advocate)

- V/s -

1) M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited,

Gate Way Building, Apollo Bunder,

(Represented by Sri.Chintan Chinnappa, Advocate)

2) M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited,

Automobile Sector, Mahindra Tower,

(Represented by Sri.Chintan Chinnappa, Advocate)

3) M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited,

Automobile Sector, M.G.Road,

Bangalore City, Karnataka.

(Represented by Sri.Chintan Chinnappa, Advocate)

4) M/s. Chrome Motors,

No.39/6, 14^th Cross, Kolandappa

Garden Anepalya, Audugodi Post,

(Represented by Sri.s.v.Giridhar, Advocate)

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI. RAJU K.S, MEMBER

01.    The complainant has filed this complaint under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite party No.4 to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

02.    The case of the complainant is that, he is the owner of Mahindra Quonto C-6 vehicle bearing registration No. KA-05-MM-8459.  The said vehicle has been regularly serviced with the opposite party No.4 - service centre.  On 21.05.2016 the said vehicle has serviced by the opposite party No.4 – service centre.  At that time the vehicle has run 27359 kilometres and the opposite party has collected Rs.8,459/- as service charge.  Due to faulty service rendered by the opposite party No.4 – service persons, on 28.08.2016 the above vehicle has break-down at Silk Board Junction, Bangalore City, at the mileage of 29,780.  Immediately the complainant called the opposite party No.4 - technician, but the opposite party No.4 has not responded properly.  With the help of the M/s. Sirish Motors the vehicle was shifted to the complainant’s residence.  Even the opposite party No.4 had given service guarantee at the spot as per the contract he has not rendered any service.  On 29.08.2016 the opposite party No.4 has shifted the vehicle to their service centre with towing service and took four days for service of the vehicle.  For that opposite party No.4 has raised Rs.16,458/- service charges which excludes Rs.1,500/- towing charges. 

03.    On 12.09.2016 once again the said vehicle has break down at Karur, Tamilnadu.  On this incidence also the opposite party No.4 has failed to give proper service and proper response.  Once again complainant serviced the vehicle at M/s. Shiva Automobiles Private Limited, Karur, with an expense of Rs.870/-.  At that time the vehicle shows mileage of 13,887 kilometres.  In Tamilnadu the complainant suffered by anxiety due to disturbance with regard to interstate Cauvery issues.  Due to the faulty service rendered by the opposite party No.4 to the complainant’s vehicle the complainant has faced these uneventful situations.  Finally on 27.03.2013 the complainant got rectified defects of his vehicle by M/s. Sirish Motors with a cost of Rs.16,768/-.  Opposite party No.4 simply raised the invoices and kept the complainant in dark with regard to the service rendered.  The opposite party No.4 has failed to do his obligations under service and made the complainant to uneventful situations which tends the complainant mental trauma.   Hence, the opposite party No.4 is liable to the complainant under deficiency of service. 

04.    The opposite party No.1 to 3 filed their version by denying the complainant’s allegation.  Further the opposite party No.1 to 3 admitted the service rendered by the opposite party No.4 on 21.05.2016, 31.08.2016 and service rendered at Karur on 12.09.2016 by M/s. Shiva Automobiles.  Further the opposite party No.1 to 3 has denied the deficiency in service and stated that, the above said vehicle was serviced for different complaints on different occasions. 

05.    On 21.05.2016 the above said vehicle has been serviced for regular servicing.  On 28.08.2016 the vehicle has been serviced as per the complaint of the complainant break-down at silk board traffic junction.  The vehicle has been delivered on 31.08.2016 with effective redressing of the complaints of the vehicle.  On 12.09.2016 the complainant approached M/s. Shiva Automobiles at Karur, Tamilnadu for low pickup and a failure in the alternator and the belt.  Same issue effectively fixed by the M/s. Shiva Automobiles Private Limited.  Since the complainant has failed to provide any proof or any expert opinion with regard to the allegations made against the opposite parties, specifically against opposite party No.1 to 3 the complainant not claimed any relief.  Hence complaint may be dismissed.

06.    The opposite party No.4 has filed his version and denied the complaint allegations.  Further the opposite party No.4 admitted the service rendered on 21.05.2016 and 29.08.2016.  On 21.05.2016 the opposite party No.4 had serviced the subject vehicle for regular service.  On 29.08.2016 the above said vehicle brought by the complainant due to break down at Silk Board Junction due to failure in dynamo/Alternator.  The above said issues are fixed by replacing Alternator, Belt Alternator and Tensioner Assembly Drive Belt.  Further the opposite party states that, he had serviced the above said vehicle with prompt and good service and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.4.  Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint against opposite party No.4.

07.    The advocate for the complainant has filed affidavit of the complainant on 06.10.2017.  The counsel for opposite party No.1 to 3 has filed affidavit of authorized signatory of opposite party No.1 to 3 on 06.12.2017.  The counsel for opposite party No.4 has filed affidavit of the General Manager of opposite party No.4 on 10.11.2017.

08.    Counsels for complainant and opposite party No.4 have filed their respective written arguments. 

09.    Heard arguments of opposite party No.1 to 4.

10.    Based on pleadings and documents the points that would arise for consideration are as under:-

  (1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.4?

  (2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the 

    relief as sought ?

       (3) What order ?

11.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-

Point No.1 :  In negative

Point No.2 :  In negative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following:-

REASONS                                             

12. POINT NO.1 & 2:-  To avoid the repetition of facts of the complaint we have discussed point No.1 & 2 together.  The complainant had filed this complaint for the alleged deficiency of service by the opposite party No.4 towards his Mahindra Quonto C-6 vehicle bearing registration No. KA-05-MM-8459.  As per complaint allegations complainant has availed regular service to his vehicle on 21.05.2016.  Due to faulty service of the opposite party No.4 the vehicle got break down at Silk Board Junction, Bangalore City on 22.08.2016.  Once again the vehicle bought to the opposite party No.4 – service centre and got serviced.  On 12.09.2016 the above said vehicle once again has got break-down at Karur, Tamilnadu.  The complainant with great difficulty bought the subject vehicle to the opposite party No.4 show room.  In-spite of repeated service and replacement of the spare parts the opposite party No.4 failed to fix the defect in the vehicle permanently.  The opposite party had collected Rs.8,459/- and Rs.16,458/- from the complainant.  In addition to that, the complainant had spent thousands of rupees at Tamilnadu as towing and repair charges.  Due to deficiency of service by the opposite party No.4 the complainant has faced mental trauma and inconvenience due to sudden break-down of the subject vehicle. 

13.    To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint the advocate for the complainant has filed affidavit evidence of complainant with documents.  Tax invoice dated: 21.05.2016 filed by the complainant reflects the subject vehicle repaired for defect in the break, engine coating system, AC neutralizer and engine decarbonizing with recover association and wire tag ties.  In tax invoice dated: 01.09.2016 the subject vehicle was repaired Belt Alternator, Tensioner Association Drive Belt, Element Air filter, Oil Mist Separator, Accessory Drive Belts, Air Filter Element are repaired by the opposite party No.3. 

14.    In tax invoice dated: 12.09.2016 given by the Shiva Automobiles Private Limited at Salem reflects the above subject vehicle repaired for Hose clip, Intra Cooler Mounting Brkt with machine shop charges.  In invoice dated: 19.09.2016 given by the Sireesh Auto Private Limited reflects the subject vehicle repaired for Intra Cooler Assembly Service, Clip and Intra Cooler R and R.  From the scrutinization of the above invoices clearly reflects that, the subject vehicle repaired for different defects in different times.  Evidence affidavit and the documents filed by the opposite party No.1 to 3 reflects the same.  Affidavit evidence filed by the opposite party No.4 reflects that on 21.05.2016 the subject vehicle had general check-up and on 29.08.2016 the above vehicle was repaired by replacing spare parts, 1) Alternator, 2) Belt Alternator, 3) Tensioner Assembly Drive Belt. 

15.    It is the case of the complainant that, due to faulty service rendered by the opposite party No.4 the above said vehicle got break-down two times, once at Silk Board Junction, Bangalore, and another time in Selam, Tamilnadu.  Due to break-down of the above vehicle the complainant faced mental agony and severe inconvenience.  The documents produced by the complainant as well as opposite parties reflects that, the above said vehicle was repaired  for different complaints on different occasions.  The complainant not produced any expert evidence which tends to show that, due to faulty service of the opposite party No.3 the complainant’s subject vehicle has met with break-down.  The complainant miserably failed to prove the burden casted on him.  In view of the documents and discussion made above, we came to the conclusion that, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service by the opposite parties specifically opposite party No.4.  Hence, we came to the conclusion that, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service of the opposite parties and answered point No.1 & 2 in negative.

16.    POINT NO.3:-     As discussed supra, for the foregoing reasons we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 25^th Day of May, 2023)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

Sri. P.G. Ramesh, the complainant has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents produced for complainant side:

1. Original Tax Invoice ( 03 in numbers)
2. Invoice Bill of Madhu Towing Services dt.29.08.2016.
3. Shiva Automobiles (P) Ltd., Invoice.
4. Mahindra WYH RSA certificate
5. Invoice
6. Tax Invoice of Siresh Auto (P) Ltd.
7. Legal notice to M/s. Crome Motors with RPAD receipts.
8. Legal notice to M/s.  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
9. 04 acknowledgments of RPAD which is duly served.
10. Call details of BSNL phones.

Witness examined for the opposite party No.1 to 3 side:    Sri. Anirban Das, The Authorized Signatory of opposite party No.1 to 3 has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents produced for Opposite Party No.1 to 3 side:

01. Copy of Vehicle history.

02. Copy of Warranty information & Maintenance Guide.

Witness examined for the opposite party No.4 side: 

Sri. Maqhbul Ahemed, the General Manager of opposite party No.4 has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents produced for Opposite Party No.4 side:

1. Copy of Pre-invoice No.RBR17B000272 generated by opposite party No.4 against the complainant.
2. Copy of Invoice No. RBR17B000272 generated by opposite party No.4 against the complainant.
3. Copy of Invoice No. RBR17B000716 dt.31.08.2016.
4. Copy of Invoice by Shiva Motors (P) bearing No.RBC17100131.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)          (SHIVARAMA. K)    

            MEMBER               MEMBER              PRESIDENT