BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 30th day of December, 2008
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.88/2008 Between Complainant : Roji Paul, 474, Pottackal House, Vattayar P.O Now residing at Pottackal House, Adimali P.O, Pin 685 561, Idukki District. (By Adv: Praveen.K.George) And Opposite Parties : 1. M/s.T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Limited, K.K.Rod, Collectorate P.O, Kottayam. (By Advs: Sony Sebastian & George.T.Thachett) 2. The Proprietor, Plathottam Automobiles, TVS Service Centre, Adimali. O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) The complaint is filed against the opposite party for unfair trade practice in repairing the vehicle.
The complainant had purchased a MAXX PICKUP LMV-GOODS CARRIAGE(MAHINDRA MAXX MAXI TRUCK) from the opposite party, who is the dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra Company. The vehicle was used for personal purpose. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, the opposite party assured the complainant that proper services would be available for the vehicle including the availability of the spares. Shortly after the purchase of the vehicle the front left and right leaf springs, rear right side connecting rod and combination switch of the said vehicle were became damaged. The complainant approached the opposite party to get the vehicle repaired, the vehicle with its original spares. But the opposite party replied that the opposite party could not repair the vehicle with its original spares for the want of availability of spare parts. After that on 6.02.2008, the complainant sent a letter requesting the opposite party to make immediate arrangements to get the original spares to repair the said vehicle. Even after that the complainant has approached the opposite party several times, requesting to make arrangements for getting the necessary spare parts but the opposite party could not make the spare parts available. On 25.05.2008, the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party requesting him to make immediate arrangements to make the vehicle got repaired. The complainant sustained heavy loss because of the vehicle was ideal for the last many months. So the petition is filed for getting a direction to repair the said vehicle with original spare parts and also for other compensation.
2. The Ist opposite party filed written version stating that the vehicle in question namely Mahindra Max Pickup LMV Goods carriage has purchased and used for commercial purpose. There is no defect in goods or deficiency in service involved in this case as per the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The warranty of the vehicle in question is expired on 30.1.2007. The opposite party was surprised to receive the legal notice dated 25.03.2008 issued by the complainant because the complainant never approached the opposite party to repair the vehicle. After taking delivery of the brand new vehicle from the opposite party, the complainant never approached this opposite party with any complaint or otherwise as alleged. The complainant never, even once brought his vehicle to this opposite party for carrying out any repairs. The vehicle which carries a taxi permit, is used for commercial purpose in the business of supplying gas and other products for industrial purposes engaging a driver. Immediately after receiving the legal notice, the opposite party contacted the complainant and the parts he requested were made available with the opposite party. The complainant was informed about the same in letter dated 24.06.2008. The complaint is having no cause of action against the Ist opposite party. The Ist opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as compensation or cost. 3. As per the written version of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party to get the vehicle repaired with its original spares on 4.01.2008 as per Job Card no.3825. The vehicle was not repaired due to non-availability of original spares and the vehicle was returned to the complainant. Thereafter on 5.0.2008 axle complaint was reported by the complainant. The vehicle was not admitted and job card was not prepared for the above complaint since spares were not available. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. What all service could be done was done to the complainant by this opposite party. Since the actual dispute is between the complainant and the Ist opposite party, this opposite party is not vicariously liable for any loss, damage or compensation arising out in the vehicle. There is no cause of action against this opposite party.
4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 5. The evidence is consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1.
6. The POINT :- The complainant purchased a MAXX PICK UP LMV-GOODS CARRIAGE(MAHINDRA MAXX MAXI TRUCK) from the 2nd opposite party on 30.11.2006. The vehicle was delivered at Adimali. The vehicle was used for agricultural as well as business purpose. Complainant was examined as PW1.The copy of the owners' manual is marked as Exts.P1 and P2. The original spare parts of the vehicle were not supplied and so no proper service was rendered to the complainant as per the assurance given at the time of the delivery of the vehicle. Ext.P3 is the letter written by the complainant to the Ist opposite party for getting the original parts of the vehicle. Ext.P4 is the lawyer notice issued to the opposite party for the same. Ext.P6 is the reply letter written by the Ist opposite party stating that the original parts were available at their Kottayam office. As per the complainant, the vehicle was kept ideal for 6 months, because of that heavy loss was occurred to the complainant. Ist opposite party was examined s DW1. As per DW1, they were not aware of the defect of the vehicle. They have noticed the matter only after receiving the lawyer's notice issued by the complainant. After receiving the notice, they have arranged the original parts and communicated the same to the complainant as per Ext.P6 letter. Moreover, the vehicle is using for commercial purpose and hence the petition will not sustain. As per the 2nd opposite party, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party to get the vehicle repaired with original spares on 4.01.2008, as per Job Card No.3825. The vehicle was not repaired due to non-availability of the original spares and the vehicle was returned to the complainant. Thereafter on 5.02.2008, the petitioner complained about the "axle complaint" of the vehicle, but the vehicle was not admitted in workshop and job card was not prepared for the above complaint, since spares were not available. The 2nd opposite party is not vicariously liable for any loss or damage arising out of it. The complainant purchased the vehicle for his agricultural purpose and business for his daily bread. Hence there is no dispute regarding the matter that the vehicle is exclusively used for commercial purpose. As per the complainant, he has intimated the non-availability of the original spares to the Ist opposite party several times, also through Ext.P3 notice and Ext.P4 lawyer notice. The same was duly served on 28.03.2008 to the opposite party as per Ext.P5 AD Card. The opposite party intimated that the spares were available at his office at Kottayam. But it is seen that the reply letter stating the parts are available at their office is written only on 24.06.2008 as per Ext.P6. So there is deliberate delay caused on the part of the Ist opposite party, which is a gross deficiency in their service. As per Ext.P2, copy of the owner's manual, it is written that owner's are advised to get all the repairs and maintenance work, done by our authorized dealers. They are also advised to use genuine M&M parts manufactured to original specification. Also continued that “please contact nearest authorized service dealer or Mahindra authorized service centre for free inspection service during warranty and thereafter for periodical vehicle maintenance and repairs”. Here the authorized agent who is the 2nd opposite party. As per their written version, it is admitted that the vehicle was brought to their office by the complainant, but it was not repaired due to on-availability of the original spares and the vehicle was returned to the complainant. So the Ist and 2nd opposite parties are liable for the damages and loss caused to the complainant. As per the complainant, the vehicle was not plying for 6 months because of the non-availability of the spares, Rs.75,000/- is claimed for the damages and costs. There is no evidence is produced by the complainant to prove the same. The complainant may suffered some amount because of the defect of the same. We think it can be Rs.2,000/- per month. So Rs.12,000/- can be awarded for the loss caused to the complainant due to the non-plying of the vehicle and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition. Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to repair the vehicle of the complainant with original spare parts within one month. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.12,000/- for the loss caused to the complainant due to the non-plying of the vehicle and also Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2008 Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Roji Paul On the side of Opposite Parties : DW1 - Ashok Kumar Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - True copy of Owner's Manual Ist page Ext.P2 - True copy of Owner's Manual 5th page Ext.P3 - True copy of complainant's letter dated 6.0.2008 addressed to the Manager, TVS Service Centre, Kottayam Ext.P4 - True copy of legal notice dated 25.03.2008 issued by the advocate of the complainant to the Ist opposite party Ext.P5 - AD Card Ext.P6 - True copy of Ist opposite party's letter dated 24.06.2008 addressed to the complainant Ext.P7 - True copy of complainant's letter dated 7.07.2008 addressed to the Manager, TVS Service Centre, Kottayam On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil
| 
