IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 14/2013 (Filed on 23.01.2013)
Between:
Shiny. P.S,
Sreechithiralayam,
Kulakkada.P.O.,
Kottarakkara,
Kollam Dist.
(By Adv. K.G. Muraleedharan-
Unnithan) …. Complainant
And:
M/s. S.S. Motors,
Rep. by its Proprietor,
M.G. Junction,
Enathu.P.O.,
Pathanamthitta Dist. …. Opposite party.
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: The complainant is the registered owner of Hyundai Verna Car bearing Reg.No.KL-24/5445. The vehicle has been continuously used by her husband. While thus the car was being used by her husband, on 14.11.2011, starting trouble developed to the vehicle and the matter was promptly informed to the opposite party. Service manager of the opposite party came to complainant’s house and taken the car to their workshop for repair.
3. While the complainant’s husband visited the workshop of the opposite party and he was informed by the service manager that the problem of the vehicle has to be solved by replacing gasket and the spare parts were not available, they have ordered for the same and the vehicle could be delivered only an arrival of the spare parts.
4. After one week complainant contacted the opposite party regarding the progress of the repair. Then she was informed that it may require further one week to hand over the vehicle. This aroused some suspicion in the mind of the complainant. Then the complainant’s husband reached the workshop of opposite party but he was not permitted to see the vehicle by saying that customers are unwelcome to the repair area. Finally he was allowed to see the vehicle in a condition that the engine of the vehicle was removed, and they informed that some major work is pending. Complainant’s husband demanded that the vehicle should be returned immediately.
5. After one month on intimation, the complainant’s husband visited the workshop, then the service manager told him that the total expenditure for the repair is Rs. 76,601/-. The complainant was shocked to hear the expenditure which was never stipulated either at the time when the vehicle was taken for repair or after words or on any occasion. Complainant informed the matter to Hyundai at Chennai, but the matter was not settled. Finally complainant sent legal notice to the opposite party informing that he is ready to take back the vehicle after paying the amount required for replacing gasket, which is the assigned work. But the opposite party has not complied the demand in the notice. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting back the vehicle and for realizing Rs.3,09,000/- less the expenses for charging the gasket, as damages and compensation with 12% interest and for allowing Rs.500/- per day till the return of the vehicle along with cost.
6. In this case, opposite party has not turned up and hence they are declared as exparte.
7. On the basis of the allegations in the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
8. The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Ext.A1 to A7. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
9. The Point:- Complainants allegation is that he is the registered owner of Hyundai Verna Car having Reg.No.KL-24/5445. On 14.11.2011 the said car showed starting trouble and it was informed to the opposite party and the opposite party took the car to their workshop for repair. Opposite party informed the complainant that the problem of the vehicle has to be solved by replacing the gasket. Opposite party further told that spare parts were not available they have ordered for the same and the vehicle could be delivered only on arrival of the spare parts. Complainant’s husband regularly visited the workshop but they extended the time by saying that it required some major works.
10. After one and a half month on intimation by the opposite party, complainant visited the workshop then the opposite party told him that the total expenditure for the repair is Rs.76,601/-. The complainant was shocked to hear the expenditure which was never stipulated either at the time when the vehicle was taken for repair or after words. Complainant informed the matter to Hyundai Motors, Chennai. But the dispute is not resolved. Finally, complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party informing that the complainant is ready to take back the vehicle after paying the amount required for replacing the gasket, which is the assigned work. But opposite party did not turned up. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the opposite party is liable to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting g the repaired vehicle along with cost and compensation.
11. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed proof affidavit along with 7 documents, which is marked as Ext.A1 to A7 on the basis of the proof affidavit. Ext.A1 is the retail invoice dated 30.11.2011 issued by opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2 is the copy of letter dated 27.02.2012 issued by the complainant to Hyundai Motors. Ext.A3 is the copy of letter dated 06.03.2012 issued by the complainant to Hyundai Motors. Ext.A4 is also the copy of letter issued by the complainant to Hyundai Motors. Ext.A5 is the copy of communication sent by opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A6 is the copy of legal notice issued to the opposite party. Ext.A7 is the postal receipt of Ext.A6.
12. On the basis of the pleadings and arguments of the complainant, we have perused the available materials on record and found that the complainant’s vehicle had been entrusted to the opposite party for repairs on 15.11.2011 and the vehicle is not returned so far by the opposite party. The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party demanded an amount of Rs. 76,601/- as repairing charges as against their promise of a simple repairs of gasket changing. Since the opposite party is exparte, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the complainant’s allegations and hence the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged. Hence we found that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the complainant and therefore this complaint is allowable. However, in the absence of any evidence, complainant’s claim for damages is not allowable.
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to return the vehicle in question to the complainant along with Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to recover the vehicle by process of law and to realize the compensation and cost ordered herein above with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of June, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Retail invoice dated 30.11.2011 issued by opposite party
the name of the complainant
A2 : Photocopy of letter dated 27.02.2012 sent by the
complainant to the opposite party.
A3 : Photocopy of letter dated 06.03.2012 issued by the
complainant to the opposite party.
A4 : Photocopy of letter dated 06.03.2012 issued by opposite
party to the complainant.
A5 : E.mail dated 08.03.2012 issued by the opposite party to the
complainant.
A6 : Copy of legal notice dated 27.11.2012 issued by the
complainant to the opposite party.
A7 : Postal receipt of Ext.A6.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Shiny. P.S, Sreechithiralayam, Kulakkada.P.O.,
Kottarakkara, Kollam Dist.
(2) Proprietor, M/s. S.S. Motors, M.G. Junction,
Enathu.P.O., Pathanamthitta Dist.
(3) The Stock File.
