BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MAY 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 692/2023
Sri. Sajan K R, Aged about 29 years, S/o Raghunath K, R/at Kayarhodi House, Sullia Post and Village, Sullia Taluk, D.K. District-574239 (By Sri.Vijay Krishna Bhat.M , Advocate) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | M/s Tata Motors, Regd Office, Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400 001. | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | The Manager, Aravinda Motors Pvt Ltd., Near Mayura Talkies, Bolwar, Puttur Taluk, D.K.District-574 201. | |
ORDER ON ADMISSION
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant/Complainant has preferred this appeal against the dismissal order dt.24.02.2023 passed in CC.No.235/2020 by the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Commission, Mangalore and submits that the complainant had filed a complaint alleging a deficiency in service before the District Commission against the OP-1 and 2 and sought for repair of the vehicle along with a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- for deficiency in service and other expenses. The District Commission after trial, dismissed the complaint without any reasons and further submits that he had purchased the vehicle TATA ACE bearing registered No.KA-21-B-4838 from third person a year back for the purpose of his livelihood. On 8.06.2020 he gave the vehicle for the repair with OP-1 and 2 as it was making abnormal sound and after repair on 10.06.2020 the second OP returned the vehicle and charged the Rs.7,387/-at that time the vehicle was plyed 1,20,070 kms. There afterwards, the complainant noticed again the vehicle was broke down at Sullia on 16.06.2022 he again gave it for repair. After repair the OP-1 and 2 have charged Rs.36,890/- before taking the delivery at that time the vehicle was taken for test drive along with mechanic of the second OP where it was noticed that the engine was rough noisy and the meter board was showing yellow light and immediately at the time driving the vehicle stopped completely.
2. There afterwards, the second OP took the vehicle for repair and messaged the complainant stating that the estimated cost of Rs.87,125/- for repair. The OPs informed that the vehicle engine was seized due to Oil circulation blockage. The said blockage for high RMP and suggested for repair of the engine and sent message for costs of repair to the tune of Rs.87,125/-. The complainant alleged that only due to defective repairs made by OP-1 and 2 the vehicle was seized. In spite of repairing the vehicle 2 times earlier the vehicle was not road worthy and complainant was unable to utilise the vehicle to earn his livelihood. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and filed the complaint but, the District Commission only considered the documents produced by this Respondent and dismissed the complaint. Hence, prays for set aside the order passed by the District Commission and direction is given to the OP for payment of cost of Rs.1,20,000/- along the direction for repair of the vehicles. Heard on admission.
3. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, Memorandum of appeal, we noticed that the complainant had purchased one TATA ACE from 3rd person for his earning livelihood. There afterwards, it tendered the said vehicle for repair on 08.06.2020 and also on 16.06.2020. The OP-1 and 2 have repaired the vehicle on each time and collected a repair charges of Rs.7,382/- and Rs.36,890/- respectively. But not satisfying with the said repairs complainant again tendered the vehicle for repair where the OPs have sent a message for repair charges to the tune of Rs.87,125/- at that time the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and 2 and filed complaint before the District Commission. The District Commission after appreciating the evidence from both sides dismissed the complaint holding that there is no any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1 and 2 as because they have demanded for payment of Rs.87,125/- towards repair of the engine of the vehicle. Whereas, the complainant had alleged that in spite of repairs made by OP-1 and 2 the said problem persisted and requested for a direction to be given for repair of the vehicle at free of cost. We noticed that the complainant also alleged against OP-1 and 2 that the assurance on OP-1 and 2 only. The vehicle was purchased from 3rd person. The OP-1 and 2 have after thorough check-up assured that the vehicle has no engine problem and canvassed for the purchase of the vehicle. But, after purchase he noticed the series of problem which unable to repair. Hence, filed the complaint.
4. The District Commission had appreciated the documents produced by OP that is Ex-R-1 to R-9 in R-4 one job card was issued by the OP to show that the vehicle Engine requires to be repaired and estimation cost of Rs.87,125/- at that junction of time the complainant had requested the OP-1 and 2 for repair the vehicle temporally in order to run. As per the request the OP-1 and 2 have temporally repaired the vehicle. The said repair was mentioned in the job card the District Commission also appreciating the said job card the compliant was dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and 2. The conclusion taken by the District Commission below is in accordance with law. The job card is every valuable document to show what all the repairs were done at the time of tendering the vehicle for repair. It is an admitted fact that an amount of Rs.36,890/-was received for temporally repair of the vehicle. The vehicle was plyed for certain days there afterwards, the complainant noticed certain problems in the engine. The said engine requires full repair but the complainant not interested in repairing the vehicle by paying an amount of Rs.87,125/- to OP-1 and 2. We are of the opinion that mere sending message for repair charges not amounts to a deficiency in service if at all complainant requires the repair of the vehicle in total he had to spend the said amount. We found there is no any deficiency in service on part of OP-1 and 2 in repairing the vehicle as per the request made by the complainant. The District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint and we do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission. As such no interference is required. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar)
Member Judicial Member
VS*
