Date of Filling:      06.06.2018

                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:  14.12.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

THIRU.  J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.                                         .…. PRESIDENT

TMT.      K. PRAMEELA, M.Com.                                                  ….. MEMBER-I

THIRU.  D.BABU VARADHARAJAN, B.Sc., B.L.                          ..… MEMBER-2

CC.No.20/2018

FRIDAY, THE 14^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

G.Gopalakrishnan,

S/o.Late R.Govinda Pillai,

15/4, Karnam Street,

Selaiyur,

Chennai - 600 073.                                                       ……..Complainant

                                               //Versus//

M/s.Zulalika Motors Private Limited,

10,B (SP) 3^rd Main Road,

Ambattur Industrial Estate,

Ambattur,

Chennai - 600 058.                                                      ……. Opposite party.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 07.12.2018 in the presence of complainant, who has appeared as party in person, opposite party called absent and set ex-parte and having perused complainant’s side documents, and hearing the arguments on the side of the complainant and this Forum delivered the following:-

                                                       ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.  J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT.

            This complaint has been preferred by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the opposite party for seeking direction to Pay a sum of Rs.13,850/- along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant due to the gross negligence, deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice of the opposite party and with cost  of Rs.25,000/-.

2. The brief averments of the complaint as follows:-

The complainant had given his Scorpio Car Registration No.TN-10-P-8883 for service to rectify the damages occurred due to the falling of neem trees during Vardha Storm on 12.12.2016.  After informing the insurer the said car has given to the authorized service centre as per the direction of the insurance company. The opposite party had not carried out the repairs to the satisfaction of the complainant, even though proper photograph was handed over and survey was done by the Insurance surveyor.  The opposite party has handed over the vehicle in the day light, without carrying out the repairs completely, even without washing the vehicle, without checking the vehicle whether all the electrical wiring lightings are working, etc. In spite of his repeated phone calls and E-mail to the opposite party, the opposite party has not taken care to respond till this date of filing to rectify the defect left out by them and the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 05.08.2017, which was duly received and acknowledgement by the opposite party on 08.08.2017. The opposite party instead of satisfying the needs of the complainant, replied that the work was not covered by the Insurance, which was not at all brought to the notice of the complainant what are all the repairs covered under insurance, since it is reimbursement policy and not a cashless policy and the defects were not pointed out by the complainant at the time of delivery, which is utter false.  In spite of oral complaint and through e-mail, which was the defects or chosen to reply to the e-mail, which was the offshoot of the repairs done by the opposite party with gross negligence of the opposite party, resulted only due to the reassembling of the roof of the vehicle consequent upon which quite naturally all the wiring has to be re-wired and rectified by the opposite party.  It is the responsibility of the opposite party to rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant being the company authorized dealer and service repairer. The complainant after getting frustration of the opposite party’s lethargic behavior, callous and careless and gross negligent attitude the complainant has no other alternative than to rectify the defects locally due to the necessity and urgency of the complainant being an advocate by profession.  The complainant issued legal notice called upon the opposite party to pay Rs.13,850/- towards the cost of repairing the vehicle which is just and reasonable.The opposite party replied that they are not liable to repay since the repair was done locally, by cleverly hiding their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of opposite party and the behavior of the opposite party which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice followed by the opposite party.  Hence this complaint.

3. Though sufficient opportunities given to the opposite party he did not turned up before this Forum even on receipt of notice.  Hence the opposite party was set ex-parte.

 4.  On the side of the complainant, the complainant filed Proof Affidavit as his evidence in order to substantiate his case and Exhibit A1 to Ex.A11 were marked on his side and also filed written argument.

5. In such circumstances, this Forum decided to conclude this matter fully on merits with available evidence and documents putforth before this Forum, though the Opposite party is set Ex-parte.

6. At this Juncture, the points for determination before this forum are as follows:-

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party as narrated in the complaint?
2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for Rs.13,850/- along with interest from the opposite party?
3.  Whether the opposite party is liable to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and hardship suffered to the complainant?
4.  Whether the complainant is entitled for cost of Rs.25,000/-?
5.  To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

7.Point No.1to 4:-

The complainant in his complaint and proof Affidavit alleged that the complainant has given his Scorpio Car to the opposite party for service to rectify the damages and that the opposite party has not carried out the service and handed over the vehicle without washing and checking the vehicle damaged due to reassembling of the roof of the vehicle and the same was not rectified by the opposite party and thereafter the complainant has rectified the vehicle by spending a sum of Rs.13,850/-.  Further the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party to returned a sum of Rs.13,850/- but the opposite party has not paid the said amount and therefore the complainant has filed this complaint for payment of Rs.13,850/- and for compensation of Rs.50,000/- with cost.

8. The complainant is the owner of the Scorpio Car bearing registration No.TN-10-P-8883.  The said car was damaged due to the falling of Neem tree during vardha storm on12.12.2016.  The said car was insured with the Oriental insurance company.  Therefore the complainant informed to the insurance company about the damage of the car due to vardha storm on12.12.2016 through e-mail immediately which is marked as Exhibit A1. The complainant also enclosed the photos of the damaged car along with the e-mail.    Thereafter on 17.12.2016 the complainant has given the car for repair to the opposite party service centre. In turn the opposite party issued a manual repair order form on 17.12.2016 which is marked as exhibit A2.  In Ex.A2, order form the customer demanded the following jobs to be done “Body panel, top roof and tail lamp etc,.”  Hence there are damages in the body of the vehicle’s window and AC machine, but the opposite party has not rectified all the defects found in the vehicle.  

9. The complainant alleged that the vehicle was handed over the complainant without carrying out of the repairs completely, even without washing the vehicle, without checking the vehicle whether all the electrical wiring and lightings are working.  The opposite party has not done the repair work properly and it is the duty of the opposite party to repair the body of the vehicle without damaging the electrical wiring of the vehicle, the opposite party has not taken any care to repair the vehicle without damaging the electrical wiring but damaged the electrical wiring of the vehicle. This attitude of the opposite party amounts deficiency in service.

10. The complainant made repeated phone calls and e-mail to the opposite party to rectify the defects in the electrical wiring of the vehicle, but the opposite party informed to the complainant that the electrical wiring was not part of the body shop working and also not covered by insurance and the said information is not acceptable.  Therefore the complainant who is an practicing Advocate has rectified the defects through Om Muruga work shop by paying additional amount of Rs.13,850/- which has been marked as exhibit A8.  The complainant has done all electrical works namely.1) Auto centre locking assembly, 2) Head light holder 3) Head light bulb 4) Reserve light switch 5) Reserve camera assembly 6) AC gas filling & service, etc., through exhibit A8 dated 25.02.2017. Therefore the complainant has done all the repair works in his car immediately after taking delivery of his car from the opposite party.

11. The complainant vehicle was damaged due to vardha storm on 12.12.2016 the said vehicle was insured with Oriental insurance Company and on their advised the complainant handed over the vehicle for repair to the opposite party and the opposite party has not done all the repair works of the vehicle but damaged the electrical wiring of the car.  Thereby, the opposite party had committed deficiency in service which caused mental agony to the complainant.  The complainant because of the urgency made necessary repair and rectify the defects through Om Muruga work shop, Selayur, Chennai by paying additional amount of Rs.13,850/-.  The opposite party has not paid the said amount in spite of repeated notice.  Therefore the complainant filed this complaint for payment of Rs.13,850/- and payment of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and hardships to the complainant.  The averments stated in the complaint are acceptable.  While so, there is no iota of evidence to disprove the same on the side of the opposite party. Thus the point No.1to4 is answered accordingly.

12. Point No.5:-

As per the conclusion arrived in point no.1to4 the complainant is entitled for relief as stated above.

 In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,850/-(Rupees thirteen thousand eight hundred and fifty only)  with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e. (06.06.2018) till the date of this order (14.12.2018) and also to pay a  sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)  towards compensation  to the complainant for causing  mental agony and hardships due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open Forum of this 14^th December 2018.

 MEMBER-II                              MEMBER-I                                         PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

            -Sd-                                                    -Sd-                                                        -Sd-

       MEMBER-II                                   MEMBER-I                                         PRESIDENT