Karnataka

StateCommission

A/541/2012

S. Umesh S/o. Shivanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Nandi Toyota Motor World Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

K.A.C

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVISHANKAR                          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal Nos. 541/2012 & 1430/2012

 

Appeal No. 541/2012 S.Umesh, S/o. Shivanna No.210, 8th Cross, Ranganatha Colony Opp. BHEL, Mysore Road Bangalore 560 026 (By Sri. K.A. Chandra Shekara) V/s	….Appellant
M/s. Nandi Toyota Motor World Ltd. No.6/1, Talaghattapura Kanakapura Main Road 560 062 Rep. by its Managing Director   P. Gurudatta General Manager (Service) M/s. Nandi Toyota Motor World Ltd. No.6/1, Talaghattapura Kanakapura Main Road 560 062   M/s. Ravindu Motors (P) Ltd. Also known as M/s. Ravindu Toyota No.25, Chord Road, Opp. Iskon Temple Rajajinagar, Industrial Suburb 560 022 Rep. by its Managing Director   (R1 & R2 by Sri. M.S. Manjunath R3 by Sri. S. Santhosh Shetty)	..…Respondents
Appeal No. 1430/2012 M/s. Nandi Toyota Motor World Ltd. No.6/1, Talaghattapura Kanakapura Main Road 560 062 Rep. by its Managing Director   P. Gurudatta General Manager (Service) M/s. Nandi Toyota Motor World Ltd. No.6/1, Talaghattapura Kanakapura Main Road 560 062	….Appellants
S.Umesh, S/o. Shivanna No.210, 8th Cross, Ranganatha Colony BHEL, Mysore Road 560 026   M/s. Ravindu Motors (P) Ltd. Also known as M/s. Ravindu Toyota No.25, Chord Road, Opp. Iskon Temple Rajajinagar, Industrial Suburb 560 022 Rep. by its Managing Director   (R1 by Sri. K.A. Chandrashekara)	..…Respondents

O R D E R

 

BY SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER

These appeals are preferred against the order dated 10.02.2012 passed in C.C.No.2295/2011 on the file I Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore.

2. As these two appeals arisen out of the same order, these appeals are taken up together for consideration.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on persuasion of OP No.2 of OP No.1 the complainant delivered his Innova Car bearing No. KA-41-4497 to attend to painting, servicing and maintenance to the OP No.1 on 17.03.2011.  The OP Nos. 1 & 2 gave a quotation for Rs.90,000/- on 18.03.2011.  The OP Nos. 1 & 2 informed the complainant that the car has been serviced and he can take delivery of the car on 31.03.2011.  When the complainant went to OP Nos. 1 & 2 he was shown the car, he found to his utter shock and disappointment the car was attended in most careless and casual manner and the so called painting and servicing was of a totally substandard grade.  Many of the repairs had not been attended to.  The shape of the body was disfigured.  When the complainant questioned the same the OP Nos. 1 & 2 stated that the same sent for repairing and painting will be done by the OP No.3.  Accordingly, the said OPs wrote a letter on 02.05.2011 in this regard and car has been sent to the third OP.  Thereafter, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 collected Rs.90,000/- from the complainant on 07.05.2011.  The OP Nos. 1 & 2 have sent the vehicle to OP No.3 for further repairs and repainting.  OP No.3 issued a quotation for repainting / servicing and repairing to an extent of Rs.80,036/- on 09.05.2011 and 11.05.2011.  The OP Nos. 1 & 2 were required to pay the said amount to OP No.3 and get car repaired and repainted and sent it to the complainant.  Inspite of several requests, demands and e-mail the OPs have not paid the money nor got the vehicle repaired, repainted.  The complainant is using the car as a taxi and he had given it on rent for Rs.4,000/- per day.  This has caused loss to the complainant.  The notice was issued to the OPs on 12.07.2011.  Hence, the complaint.
4. OP Nos. 1 & 2 in their version admitted that complainant left his vehicle for repair with them and pleaded that after repair the complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 07.05.2011.  At no point of time these OPs have informed the complainant to shift the vehicle to the 3^rd OP.  After taking delivery on 07.05.2011, Mr. Badrinath of M/s. Vijayalakshmi Tourist demanded the OPs to pay the complete amount of the estimate of the 3^rd OP and to get the vehicle delivered to him.  As the last resort the OPs gave two options one to pay 50% of the last estimate directly to the 3^rd OP or getting the vehicle to the OP’s new B & P facility at Bommanahalli so that a totally different set of technicians will work on the car without any preconceived notion.  All other allegations are denied.
5. OP No.3 in its version pleaded that the first OP has sent a message to this OP regarding the repair of the car in question.  Subsequent to the said representation of the first OP the complainant brought the car in question for repair and painting and delivered it to the OP on 11.05.2011.  At first the third OP has given an estimate for Rs.1,15,451/-.  The OP Nos. 1 & 2 did not agree for that quotation and in presence of all the OP gave a quotation for Rs.80,036/-.  After that the 1^st OP written to this OP stating that they are prepared to pay only Rs.20,000/-.  Neither the complainant nor the other OPs are prepared to pay the whole amount and further contended that the OP is keeping the vehicle in their place for which Rs.350/- per day the parking charges has to be paid.
6. After trial the District Forum allowed the complaint in part by directing OP Nos.1 & 2 to get the vehicle repaired and repainted as per the estimate given by the 3^rd OP either paying money to the 3^rd OP or getting it done by themselves at their workshop and deliver it to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order or in the alternate to pay Rs.90,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 07.05.2011 till payment.
7. Complainant preferred Appeal No.541/2012 to allow the prayer in complaint in its entirety and OP Nos.1 & 2 preferred Appeal No. 1430/2012 to set aside the impugned order.
8. Heard counsel for complainant/appellant in A.No.541/2012.
9. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission and materials on record.  We noticed that it is evident and admitted fact that complainant is the owner of Innova car bearing No. KA-41-4497 registered as taxi with yellow board.  On 17.03.2011 the complainant had given said car to OP Nos. 1 and 2 for painting and servicing and OP Nos. 1 and 2 estimated the cost at Rs.90,000/-.  It is also admitted fact that on 31.03.2011, OP No.1 & 2 informed to the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle stating that all works were completed.  It is also an admitted fact that complainant was not satisfied with the work done by OP Nos. 1 & 2.  Hence, OP Nos. 1 and 2 wrote letter to OP No.3 on 02.05.2011 stating that the work done by them is not satisfactory to the complainant and OP No.3 has to repair and repaint it again and send the car to OP No.3.  It is also evident and admitted fact that complainant has paid Rs.90,000/- to OP Nos.1 and 2 as estimated by them.  On 09.05.2011 OP No.3 gave a quotation for Rs.80,036/- for repair and repaint of the vehicle of the complainant. 
10. Perused the appeal memo.  It is the allegation of complainant that he has paid Rs.90,000/- to OP Nos. 1 & 2 as per estimation for repair and repaint of car.  However, OP Nos. 1 & 2 sent the car to OP No.3 for repair and repaint.  Then OP Nos. 1 & 2 have to pay amount of Rs.80,036/- to the OP No.3 as per quotation of OP No.3.  OP Nos. 1 & 2 not made payment and vehicle was not repaired.  Perused the documents produced before District Commission.  We noticed OP Nos. 1 & 2 undertook to get vehicle repaired and repainted by OP No.3 and took amount of Rs.90,000/- from the complainant.  Then it is the duty of the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to get the vehicle repaired and repaint and pay whatever charges to the OP No.3 and get the vehicle released to the complainant.  However, OP Nos. 1 & 2 have not done so. 
11. Perused the order passed by the District Commission.  We noticed that during pendency of the matter before District Commission, OP Nos. 1 & 2 produced some photographs regarding completion of the repair work of the said car.  Per contra in the course of arguments and also in written arguments dated 29.06.2022 complainant has submitted that still the said vehicle was lying in an open area in the premises of OP No.3 from last 11 years and not repaired and the nature of car now is only scrap.  For such act of OP Nos. 1 & 2 complainant has suffered loss of earning and also mental agony.  Complainant further submitted that District Commission has allowed complaint and directed respondents to get the vehicle repaired or in the alternative to refund amount of Rs.90,000/- along with 12% interest from 07.05.2011 till realization which is bad and unsustainable in law.  Here we noticed that the car was registered as taxi with Yellow board and complainant was earning income from running taxi and entrusted car to M/s.Vijayalakshmi Tourist for running same and he was paying monthly collection to the complainant after deducting commission of said agency and because of OP Nos. 1 & 2, complainant lost his income from last 10 to 11 years.  Inspite of payment towards repair and repaint as per the estimation, OP Nos.1 & 2 not paid repair charges to OP No.3 and released car and handed over to complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 & 2.  The respondents are absent from long time and not argued the matter.  Now the said vehicle is in scrap condition.  Hence, to direct the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to handover the car to the complainant cannot meet the ends of justice.  Considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the said vehicle was 2007 model and complainant has used the said vehicle for four years and earned profit.  The complainant left the car with OPs in 2011.  Now we are in 2022 and as per submission of complainant the car value was Rs.10.00 lakhs and today the car is in scrap condition.  Hence, issuing direction to OP Nos. 1 & 2 to pay 50% of the cost of vehicle i.e., Rs.5.00 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. by keeping vehicle with them will meet the ends of justice.  Also the complainant is entitled for Rs.90,000/- paid by him for repairing and repainting the vehicle.  Moreover, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.  Hence, complaint against OP No.3 is dismissed.  Accordingly, the following order:

ORDER

Appeal No. 541/2012 filed by complainant is allowed by modifying the impugned order.  The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 17.03.2011 till realisation.   Further the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to refund Rs.90,000/- to the complainant and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-.

The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to comply the order within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Complaint against OP No.3 is dismissed.

Appeal No.1430/2012 filed by OP Nos. 1 & 2 is hereby dismissed.

Keep the original of this order in A.No.541/2012 and copy thereon in connected appeal.

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

CV*