BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 16/11/2009

Date of Order : 16/04/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 606/2009

Between

And

O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

1. The facts that prompted the complainant to file this complaint are the following :-

The complainant purchased 'Skoda Superb' vehicle car on 03-03-2007 from the 1^st opposite arty for personal use. The crux of the complaint is that the 1^st opposite party committed deficiency in service in repairing the air condition system of the vehicle when it was reported on several occasions, the details of which are narrated in the complaint in detail. Also, it is alleged that the 1^st opposite party has omitted to record the complaints in 'Repair order' and 'Vehicle History File'. Since the car was not returned in time after repairs, the complainant was forced to hire alternative vehicle for his personal use. On account of the aforesaid lapses on the part of the opposite parties, several reliefs are sought from the opposite parties.

2. The 1^st opposite party filed version exhaustively covering all the points raised in the complaint. The complaint is not maintainable, since the impugned vehicle is used for commercial purpose. The complainant has not raised any complaint during the period of warranty. It was on 15-10-2009, the vehicle was brought to the 1^st opposite party with complaint in the air condition systems. It is true that the defect was detected properly on 18-11-2009, when it was again brought the 1^st opposite party with complaint in air condition system. After rectification, the vehicle was delivered on 23-11-2009. The allegation that complaints were not recorded is not true and hence denied. The defects in the air conditioner were detected within reasonable time span. Alternative arrangement for stand by vehicle would have been made, had the requirement was brought to the notice of the 1^st opposite party. The vehicle was delivered on 23-11-2009 in compliance with the directions issued by this Hon'ble Forum. Thereafter the vehicle was brought for 7^th service on 25-02-2010, when no complaint was raised regarding the air conditioner. If at all any delay has occasioned, it was due to non-availability of the compressor, which was finally imported from Czech Republic. The records would disclose that the vehicle was garaged only for five days for attending the air conditioner complaint. When the vehicle was brought with complaints to the air conditioner on 09-09-2010, the matter was reported to the higher officials of the 2^nd opposite party and on their advice, the air conditioner was fully refurbished and it was ready for delivery on 15-11-2010 and it was requested to the complainant to take delivery of the same. The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought and hence this complaint deserves dismissal with costs.

3. Settlement was projected for time, but failed. I.A. 532/10 filed by the complainant was allowed. The complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A24 were marked for him. The 1^st opposite party filed version, but no further steps were taken. The 2^nd opposite party called absent. Heard the counsel for the complainant.

4. The points that call for determination are :-

1. Whether there was delay in delivery of vehicle after repair?

2. What are the reliefs, if any?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- It is to be stated that the proceedings in this complaint was pursued by both the parties in a half hearted manner. When I.A. 532/2010 was allowed, the enthusiasm of the complainant ceased. Same was the attitude of the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party did not appear, may be because no relief was sought against them. The matter was also at the verge of settlement for some time. Another noticeable feature of the proceedings was that both sides adopted the tactics of delaying th proceedings without any end for some pretext or other. Apart from filing some documents in evidence, no further steps were taken from either side in furtherance of the case. In spite of granting time for final hearing, the complainant did not turn up. Hence the proceedings were concluded with affording hearing to the opposite party only. All these events lead us to conclude that the complainant was satisfied with the delivery of the vehicle with requisite repair to the air condition system. In that view of the matter, we do not go into the examination of the points framed for the same. Consequently, we close the proceedings without pronouncing any order in the matter, except making the order in I.A. 547/2009 absolute.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 16^th day of April 2011

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========