Date of Filing      : 08.02.2019

                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 16.05.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                       .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                                 ..… MEMBER-I

                 THIRU  P.MURUGAN, B.Com.,                                                                       ….. MEMBER-II

 

 

 CC. No.06/2019

THIS MONDAY, THE 16th DAY OF MAY 2022

 

Mrs.Sridevi Thanuja,

W/o.Madhavan Kutty Karath,

No.13/7, Deepam Apartments,

Indira Nagar, 3rd Main Road,

Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.                                                       ............Complainant.

 

                                                //Vs//

M/s.TVS Automobiles Solutions Private Limited,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

B18, 1st Main Road,

Ambattur Industrial Estate,

Ambattur, Chennai -600 058.                                                    …..Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant                         :   Mr.K.Shyam Sundar, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                     :   Mr.A.Adithya, Advocate.

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 02.05.2022 in the presence of Mr.K.Shyam Sundar, counsel for the complainant and upon hearing the arguments of the complainant and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both parties, this Commission delivered the following; 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.17,647/- with 18% interest towards compensation and to reimburse the amount spent by the complainant for the repair works done during travel by Manchester Honda and to pay the cost of this proceedings.

 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

This complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service contending interalia that the complainant requested the opposite party to carry out repairs for her car Honda Amaze Diesel, bearing Registration No.TN 07-CA-9851 on 02.06.2017.  The complainant requested for the following repairs in her car

General Services

Clutch Noise

Suspension Noise

Car Wiper

Hand Brake in non-working condition

Rear Light

Blow and clean Brakes

Replace shield front splash

Cover Assy. Eng. Un

Clip Bumper.

However, when the car was delivered on 07.06.2017 the repairs done for the vehicle were as follows;

Carryout General Check up

Blow & Clean Brakes

R&R Lower Link

R&R Stab Bar/Bushes

Body Wash Complete

As the complainant had plan to go to Kerala on 08.06.2017, the car was handed over with the opposite party for repairs on 02.06.2017, however, the delivery of car was given only on 07.06.2017 though it was promised that it will be given in 3 working days.  Thus undue delay was caused without any sufficient reason by the opposite party for delivering the car after repairs.  The complainant though maintained a moderate speed taking into consideration the comfort  of her child and old aged parents, felt noise from the Engine Shield which was not properly fastened in the place and was not properly screwed and as a result the Engine Shield came out hanging and started scratching the road.  Because of this, the complainant had to stop the car very frequently which caused inordinate delay in reaching the destination.   The complainant further submitted that the opposite party assured road worthiness of the vehicle at the time of delivery, however the vehicle failed to move efficiently which is a clear failure on the part of the opposite party and the hand brake was found to be not in a working condition and caused lot of hindrance to reach the travel destination.  Further it is submitted that the complainant had to spent a huge amount to get the repairs done by Manchester Honda in Coimbatore.  When the complainant approached the opposite party over phone when the car broke down, the opposite party gave a vague reply and wanted the complainant to bring the vehicle to Chennai to carry out the repairs.   Thus alleging deficiency in services due to failure in addressing  the problems stated in the vehicle inventory, poor service with regard to the problems in car brake and engine guard, inordinate delay in delivery and lack of competent customer care services, the complaint came to be filed before this commission.

Defense of  the Opposite Party by way of Written Version:-

 

The opposite party filed version disputing the allegations of deficiency in service on their part contending interalia that the complainant had taken the delivery of the vehicle on 07.06.2017 after being completely satisfied about the condition of the vehicle and the nature of services and repairs rendered by them. The opposite party admitted that the complainant enterested her car on 02.06.2017 at 2.07pm at the opposite party’s Ambattur outlet and the following services were rendered by them;

a) General Services includes Oil service, replacement of engine oil, Oil filter and air filter;

b) Clutch checked for and was found to be normal.  There was no noise in the clutch;

c) Checked and replaced with Lower link rod and Balance rod bushes and hence the issue was rectified.

d) Car wipers appeared good and hence there was no necessity to change the same or carry out any work relating to the same.

e)  Brake checked and adjusted to working condition.

f) Carried out as a part of general check up and adjusted all wiring connections to make it in working condition.

g) Brakes were checked and cleaned.

h) both replace shield front splash and cover assy-engg.un relats to engine Splash Guard.  The splash guard is not a fast moving product and is generally not stocked unless otherwise specifically requested from the customers.  This opposite party informed the complainant about the unavailability of the same.  Since the splash guard was likely to take four to five days, the complainant asked this opposite party for an alternate until the same is made available.  Based on the request of the complainant, this oppostie party informed that a wheel tag could instead be fixed as a stop gap arrangement and further cautioned a complainant that not to drive the vehicle very fast, in a rash manner.

i) This has been fixed as required by the complainant.

 

The opposite party further submitted that regarding the delivery of the vehicle that they failed to give the vehicle delivery on 05.06.2017 that is within 3 working days was false and they never made any commitment with respect to the same.  The non-availability of the Engine Splash GUARD was informed to the complainant and she agreed for temperory arrangement.  The opposite party further submitted that the complainant took delivery of the car only after inspecting the car without raising any grievance in the services.  The noise in the engine shield on account of the same was not properly fastened in its place and that the screws were found loosen is denied.  The opposite party submitted that they advised the complainant not to drive the vehicle with high speed as the Engine Splash Guard was only temporally fixed based on the concurrence given by the complainant as the complainant insisted for the delivery of the vehicle on 07.06.2017 and as the availability of the concerned parts normally takes 4 to 5 days for delivery.  The opposite party also denied that they did not assure the road worthiness of the vehicle as they are not the competent persons.  The opposite party also denied the repairs allegedly done by the Manchester Honda.   It is further submitted that the complainant was requested to contact ‘My TVS” outlet at Mettupalayam road and the complainant also approached the said outlet were proper assistance was given by the service Engineers who fixed the Engine Guard with the wire tag after obtaining oral concurrence of the complainant due to non-availability of Engine Splash Guard. Thus the opposite party submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The complainant filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A5 and on the side of opposite party proof affidavit  was submitted and documents Ex.B1 and B2 were marked.

Point for consideration:

 

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in carrying out the repairs for the complainant’s vehicle and if so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point:

 

The complainant along with his pleadings had filed the following documents to prove her contentions

The job card dated 02.06.2017 issued by the opposite party for the vehicle was marked as Ex.A1.

The job card pre-invoice dated 02.06.2017 issued by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A2.

The cash bill for Rs.3,404/- and the cash bill for the parts of the car for an amount of Rs.7,234/- dated 07.06.2017 issued by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A3.

The Tax-Invoice issued by one Ramani Automobile Private Limited for Rs.7,009/- dated 10.06.2017 was marked as Ex.A4.

The legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 06.11.2017 along with the acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.A5.

On the side of opposite party, the following documents were filed;

The letter of Authorization dated 18.11.2020 authorizing one Mr.D.Azariha Reuben was marked as Ex.B1.

The delivery slip dated 07.06.2017 was marked as Ex.B2.

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the written arguments filed by both the parties.

 The counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party committed unreasonable delay in giving the delivery of the vehicle after the repairs.  It is submitted by him that though the complainant informed the opposite party that the vehicle was required for her travel to Kerala with her old age parents and baby, the opposite party ignoring the request of the complainant had delivered the said vehicle belatedly inspite of the opposite party promised to deliver the vehicle within three working days.  Further the problems such as Rear light and clutch noise was not adequately solved even after inordinate delay of five days.  Further due to the defective fastening of the Engine Shield, the Engine Shield came out during the travel scratching the road frequently due to which the complainant was constrained to drive the car very slowly which caused delay in reaching the destination.  The counsel further submitted that due to the deficiency in services by the opposite party the complainant has spent a huge amount for fixing the repairs of the car in Monchester Honda, Coimbatore. Thus the counsel prayed for the complaint to be allowed.

The opposite party had filed written arguments contending that all the service request made by the complainant was carried out by the opposite party before delivery and the complainant only after being satisfied by the repairs done had taken the delivery of the vehicle.  Further it is submitted that they did not give any false assurance with regard to the period of delivery of the vehicle.  With regard to the issue regarding the engine shield that it was not properly fixed and the screws were found loosen, the opposite party submitted that only after informing the complainant about the Splash Guard’s non-availability, the Engine Shield was temporarily fixed and the complainant was advised not to drive the car with high speed.  Further it is submitted that the “My TVS” at Coimbatore properly attended the complainant‘s request for service of the vehicle as per the directions of this opposite party.  Thus the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

On perusal of the pleadings and documents, we are of the view that the complaint allegation is not specific as to what repairs were not carried out properly by the opposite party.  Contrarily, the opposite party had made out a clear defence by pointing out the repairs requested by the complainant and the actual services done by the opposite party.  The allegation made out by the complainant that the vehicle was promised to be delivered after service within three working days is found baseless as no material was placed before this commission wherein the opposite party had promised to deliver the vehicle in a specified time.  Further for the contention raised by the complainant that the Engine Shield was not properly fixed by the opposite party, the opposite party had come out with a clear reply that due to non-availability of splash guard, the Engine Shield was fixed temporarily after obtaining the oral consent from the complainant and also on a suggestion that the vehicle should not be driven at a high speed.  It is an admitted fact that the car was driven till Coimbatore after the services from Chennai for nearly 500kms and it is not the specific case of the complainant that due to the negligent services by the opposite party the complainant could not travel nor travelled with difficulty.  If at all the engine cover assembly was not properly fixed, the complainant could not have travelled for such a long distance.  The only specific allegation was with regard to the fixation of Engine Shield which allegation was properly rebutted by the opposite party.  The expenses incurred by the complainant with Ramani Auto Mobiles at Coimbatore (Ex-A4) also shows that only those spare parts allegedly not available with the opposite party and which was also intimated to the complainant were replaced.  Thus we are of the view that the complainant failed to make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in carrying out the repairs and also in causing undue delay in delivery of the vehicle.  In the result, the point is answered in negative and as against the complainant. 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 16th day of May 2022.

 

           -Sd-                                                  -Sd-                                                   -Sd-                                                                                                                                         

 MEMBER-II                                           MEMBER-I                                     PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 02.06.2017 Job Card Xerox

Ex.A2 02.06.2017 Job Card Pre Invoice Xerox

Ex.A3 07.06.2017 Cash Bill Xerox

Ex.A4 10.06.2017 Tax Invoice Xerox

Ex.A5 16.11.2017 Legal notice with Ack. Card. Xerox

List of documents filed by the oppostie party:-

 

Ex.B1 18.11.2020 Letter of Authorization. Xerox

Ex.B2 07.06.2017 Delivery Slip. Xerox

 

       -Sd-                                                   -Sd-                                                     -Sd-                                                                                    

MEMBER-II                                        MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT