BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTESN REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

                                    Dated this the 3rd day of December 2020

                                                                                                       Filed on : 19.12.20116

PRESENT

Shri  V.S.Manulal                                                                                   President-in-charge

Shri V Ramachandran                                                                            Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N                                                                                          Member

CC.No.689/2016

Between

                                                                        O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member

A brief statement of the case is follows:-

            The complainant is a Mobile Phone Technician and he had purchased a ‘JAZZ PE’ Car having chassis no. MAKGK773AG4003287 and Motor Vehicle Department registered the vehicle with number KL 07/CG 6644, manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party on 4.6.2016. The said vehicle was entrusted to the 1^st opposite party on 7/7/2016 for 1^st service and some accidental repair work.  The first opposite party accepted the vehicle on 7.7.2016 vide Cap No.2232 and 4192.  As per the demand of the first opposite party the complainant paid an amount of Rs.9383/- on 12.7.16 vide receipt No.2016/17/3515 after making the payment the first opposite party brought  the vehicle for delivery.  At that time the complainant noticed some dots on the body of the vehicle so the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party service manager and informed his non interest in taking delivery of the vehicle.   Identifying the defects in the painting the 1^st opposite party service manager agreed to rectify the defect without any charges by repainting the body and send back to the complainant directing to come after 4 days.  Due to the lack of the communication the complainant visited the office of the 1st opposite party on 18.7.2016 and demanded to return the vehicle after clearing the defects in painting.  The service manager again requested for some more time and sent back the complainant.  Hiding the actual and true facts the 1^st opposite party issued a letter by e-mail and post to show them as clean person, demanding to take delivery of the vehicle within 3 days, failing which to take appropriate action to recover Rs.350/- as bay charges etc. stating   blunder and flimsy allegation one of staff of the 1^st opposite party has been intimated that the vehicle has been purchased under finance and the complainant is not interested to take delivery.  The allegation is made with prejudicial and to tarnish the complainant in public.  The complainant sent e-mail to the 1^st opposite party on different occasions.  Till 20.10.2016 there was no reply or action from the side of the 1^st opposite party.  So the action of the 1st opposite party amounts to negligent, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and amounts to compensate the loss to the complainant.  The complainant demanded to get back Rs.9383/- with interest at 12% and for compensation of Rs.250000/- along with other reliefs.

            Notices were issued from this commission and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed defective Vakalath and hence not accepted.  Subsequently the 1^st opposite party field their version.  In the version filed by the 1^st opposite party, it was stated that the entire allegation stated by the complainant is false and frivolous and devoid of any merit.  The 1^st opposite party stated that they are authorized dealer and service centre of Honda Cars .    The complainant brought his JAZZ PE car bearing registration No. KL-07/CG 6644 to do some accidental repair work on body and paint job along with 1^st free service.  After the completion of requested work, the opposite party raised bill for the accidental repair work   carried out by the opposite party for Rs.9383/- which was paid by the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant pretended that he was not happy with the repainting work done on damaged part of the vehicle.    The real intention of the complainant throwing allegations against the opposite party was to get the vehicle free of cost.  Since the complainant pretended that he is not happy with the painting work, the opposite party tried to do all the possible to make the complainant happy and satisfied even though nothing potentially required to be done over and above the initial work.  However even after repeated requests complainant hesitated to take delivery of the vehicle.  He demanded to get his vehicle as new vehicle and return of money charged for accidental repair work.  Since then the vehicle of the complainant has been lying in the premises of the opposite party.  The opposite party repeatedly   requested to the complainant on call to take delivery of the vehicle lying into opposite party’s premises.  But  the complainant ignored the same and hesitated to take delivery of the vehicle.  At that time the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant informing the complainant that an amount of Rs.500/- will be charged per day if the complainant is not taking delivery of the vehicle.  But the complainant did not turn up and sent a legal notice raising untenable allegations and contentions. Hence the opposite party contended that the complainant is merely trying to make allegation for his own fault to the shoulder of the opposite party and opposite party vehemently denied any sort of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service from their side and submitted that the opposite party is not binding to make any compensation since there is no loss or deficiency sustained to complainant by the opposite party.

            The complainant filed exhibit A1 to A5 and opposite party filed exhibit B1.  The PW1 was cross examined and an advocate commission was posted to conduct a spot inspection and investigation into the matter.  The advocate commission, after examination of the premises and vehicle reported that the vehicle was inspected on 14.1.2017 at 11.30 am in the presence of the counsel of the complainant and the office staffs of the first opposite party the subject matter vehicle was lying separately from other vehicle.  The vehicle was washed and cleaned.  The vehicle found to have covered 884 Km.  The Advocate commission instructed Mr. Thomas Joseph an officer of the opposite party to start the vehicle.  The vehicle started smoothly.  There was no abnormal sound or vibration found and the advocate commission had given a detailed report of his inspection on 27.2.2017 which is marked as C1 objection to the Commission report was field by the complainant stating that the advocate commissioner had issued to the parties well in advance and it facilitate the opposite party to clean the vehicle and to cure the defects. Exhibit A1 produced by the complainant is a retail invoice showing the price of the vehicle purchased by the complainant.  Exhibit A2

 is a Manual service repair form of Peninsular Honda.  Exhibit A3 is a reply to the legal notice sent by the opposite party.  Exhibit A4 is a copy of the e-mails sent by the complainant and Exhibit A5 is a copy of the letter sent by the complainant through e-mail. Exhibit B1 is produced by the opposite party is an authorization letter issued by the fist opposite party as Mr. Manoj Sebastian, Service Manager to represent on behalf of the first opposite party.

            We have examined the matter in detail with records, documents produced from both sides, depositions taken from PW1 in the Box, also from the commission report submitted by the commission and reached to the following inferences.

 We have considered the following points in detail.

1. Whether the complainant had subjected to any deficiency  in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. If so whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation for the same?
3. Cost of proceedings if any?

Issue No.1

On perusal of the document it has been seen that the complainant had

Purchased a JAZZ PE car having chassis No.MAKGK773AG4003287 from the opposite party on 04.06.2016 which was registered by the MVD with Registration No. KL 07 CG 6644 manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant entrusted the vehicle for some service and for some accidental repair work on 7.7.16 with the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party accepted the vehicle for service.  The 1^st opposite party returned the vehicle to the complainant on 12.7.2016 after accepting a sum of Rs.9383/-as repair charges.   In this connection it can be seen that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.9383/- at the counter of the 1^st opposite party and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant after effecting the payment.   The complainant noticed some white dots on the vehicle and hence the complainant alleged defects in the painting of the car by the opposite party and therefore the complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle.  The 1^st opposite party do not explain or mention anything as regards to the identification of dots said to be detected by the complainant, merely says that the complainant is pretended to be unhappy with the painting work so as to get the vehicle free of repair charges.  The explanation of the opposite party is not at all satisfactory and the opposite party issued a letter to the complainant showing that if the complainant is not taking delivery of the vehicle within   3 days the opposite party will take appropriate action to recover an amount of Rs.350/- per day as bay charges from the complainant.  It can be seen that the complainant had approached the opposite party on different occasions through letters and e-mails the opposite party has not made any fair effect to rectify the defects pointed out by the complainant in the painting work.  The opposite party  admits that they had tried to do all the possible to make the complainant happy since the complainant was unhappy with the painting work and merely says that there is nothing potentially required to be done over and above the initial work.   That itself shows that the opposite party had not made an earnest effort to rectify the defects in painting pointed out by the complainant.

An advocate commission was appointed to examine the vehicle. There is no mention anywhere in the report of the commission regarding the dots detected in the painting work of the vehicle but the advocate commission had specifically reported in the examination report regarding the painting works which is as follows:-

“The accidental repairing and painting was done on the Left Hand Running Board right hand quarter panel and Right Rear Door.  No painting defects were found.”

             Hence we are coming to an inference that there has not been any grave deficiency of service or unfair trade practice occurred from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant. Taking into account the circumstances of the case we do direct the opposite party to return the vehicle to the complainant after carrying out a perfect service on the vehicle within 7 days after conducting a thorough checking on the vehicle with the service engineers of the opposite party on receipt of the copy of this letter without charging any amount for such service from the complainant.  Thus the complaint is decided accordingly.

            Pronounced in the open commission on this the 3^rd day of December. 2020

Sd/-V.Ramachandran,Member

     Sd/-V.S.Manulal,President-in-charge         Sd/-Sreevidhia T.N. Member

                                                                                                 Forwarded by Order

                                                                                                Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainant’s exhibits:-

1. Exhibit A1- is a retail invoice showing the price of the vehicle purchased by the complainant.
2.  Exhibit A2 -is a Manual service repair form. 
3. Exhibit A3- is a reply to the legal notice sent by the opposite party. 
4. Exhibit A4 -is a copy of the mail sent by the complainant and
5. Exhibit A5- is a copy of the letter sent by the complainant.
6. C1        :  Advocate Commission Report.

Opposite party’s Exhibits:-

1.  Exhibit B1- is produced by the opposite party is an authorization letter issued by the fist opposite party as Mr. Manoj Sebastian, Service Manager to represent on behalf of the first opposite party.

Depositions:-

 PW1       :  Jerson Francis Dsilva

Despatch Date:

By hand:           By post: