AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 1354/2008 against C.C. 678/2005, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad

Between:

M/s. International Graphics Ltd.,

610, Amrutha Estates

Himayatnagar,

Hyderabad-500 029.

Rep. by M. Raghava Rao

S/o. M. Venkateswarlu

Age: 52 years,

R/o. Apple House, Vidyanagar

Hyderabad-500 044.                                   ***                         Appellant/                                                                                                             Complainant

                                                                   And

M/s. Venakteswara  Motors (P) Ltd.,

3-5-170/A/13, Opp. Water Tank

Narayanaguda, Hyderabad

Rep. by its Managing Director                              ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Appellant:                          Mr. T. Narender Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents:                    Admission Stage

QUORUM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT 

                                                          &

                                    SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

FRIDAY, THE  TWENTY FOURTH  DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND EIGHT

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

          Having  heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant both on the delay and on the merits of the matter, and on perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of  at the stage of admission itself.

          This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant  against the order of the Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad in  directing him to take delivery of the vehicle  from the respondent within two months from the date of order on  29.5.2006. Along with it the complainant  filed an application u/s 15 of  Consumer Protection Act to condone the delay of 146 days  on the ground that he was out of India and could  not prefer the appeal.

          The case of the complainant in brief is that  he is the owner of  blue colour  Ceilo car AP9M 819  purchased in the year 1996.   While he was travelling on Guntur – Vijayawada highway  in the year 2002 its  gear box was damaged, and the same was entrusted to respondent for repairs.  There was  comprehensive insurance policy.  When he informed the insurance company, it in turn directed him to get it repaired, and it would reimburse the same.   He requested the respondent to  change the colour from blue to white besides making repairs.   It  failed to deliver the vehicle despite repeated notices.   On the other hand, it  claimed Rs. 15,000/- towards painting and other charges besides garage rent..  He shifted the car without informing him to Hyderabad. He removed all the important parts.  Therefore, he prayed that the respondent be directed to pay the value of the vehicle with compensation and costs.

          The opposite party resisted the complaint.   It alleged that having received the vehicle for repair of gear box, it  repaired it.  On the instructions of the complainant the painting was also changed from blue to white.  The  complainant had paid Rs. 10,000/- only out of estimated cost of Rs. 15,000/-.   Despite several telephone calls, the complainant neither  come nor take back delivery of the vehicle.  On that it has  issued notice Dt. 16.9.2002 for payment of Rs. 24,962/-.  However he did not pay.   Due to closure of its workshop at Vijayawada, it shifted to Hyderabad.  It  requested the complainant to take back the vehicle, however, he did not come to  receive the car.  Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

          The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs. A1 to A4 while the respondent filed his affidavit evidence and Exs. B1 to B5. 

          The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the respondent informed by  letter Dt. 16.9.2002 that the car was repaired and the colour was also changed as requested  and directed him to pay Rs. 24,963/- and take back the car.   However, the complainant did not respond.  Therefore, the Dist. Forum having opined that the complainant was guilty in not taking back the vehicle directed him to take the vehicle within two months from the date of order. 

          Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this  appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts  in  correct perspective.   It ought  to have seen that the respondent did not repair the vehicle due to lack of spare parts.  He kept the vehicle for two years in its custody.  He was entitled to  value of  the car. 

          As we are disposing of the appeal at the stage of admission, we condone the delay.

          A perusal of record would  undoubtedly disclose that  the car was purchased in the year 1996 vide Ex. A1 proceedings of the Asst. Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad Dt. 9.7.1996.  On 25.2.2002  while he was travelling on Guntur – Vijayawada highway  there was  damage to the gear box.  On that he entrusted it to  respondent for its repair.  The repair order form is Ex. B1.  On 25.2.2002 he requested the respondent to change the colour of the car  while getting the car repaired.

          Since the car was entrusted by  one  M. Raghava Rao on behalf of the complainant,  the respondent as long back as on  2.4.2002 within one and half months gave notice evidenced under Ex. B2 for payment of  advance of Rs. 10,000/- for getting it repaired.   This was followed by another letter  Ex. B3 Dt. 16.9.2002.   The respondent mentioned that it has  rectified the defects, changed the colour and claimed Rs. 24,963/-.   In stead of  paying the amount or  responding to the said letter, the complainant issued a belated letter  on 6.5.2004 evidenced under Ex. A2 complaining that “you have completed the painting but not repaired so far.  Instead of  repairing the vehicle you have stolen most important parts of the vehicle.  If the car was not delivered  within 7 days action would be taken.”.  Responding to the notice, respondent gave  reply on 12.5.2004 under Ex. A4 alleging that  car was given for repairs  about two years and three months ago, and it was repaired.  The colour was also changed evidenced under series of photographs Ex. B5.   It was further informed that  garage at Vijayawada was closed and the car was shifted to Hyderabad  after informing to the  Police  at Vijayawada.   In spite of the fact that representative of the complainant had visited the garage  in January, 2004  who was informed about the amount to be paid for the repairs carried out  he did not care nor took delivery of the vehicle.   Finally, he stated that “Coming to your contention that car parts have been stolen appears more hearsay than actually seen since the car was parked in the open in Vijaywada for a long period some of the important parts have been removed  and preserved in  the workshop at Vijaywada.  These parts can be restored if the problem is resolved amicably.”

          In stead of responding to the notice, the complainant filed  the  complaint on  13.9.2004 claiming  Rs. 6,80,000/- the entire value of the car together with compensation of  Rs. 5,00,000/-.

          At the out set we may state that the complainant did not file any documents to prove that car was purchased at Rs. 6,80,000/-.   The car was purchased in the year 1996,  eight  years prior to  filing of the complaint.  He could not have claimed the entire value  of  the car.   Apart from it, when the respondent has repeatedly  informed that the car was repaired, colour was changed and requested him to take back the car on payment of Rs. 24,963/- towards repairs, he did not respond.   The complainant did not file  affidavit of any of his representatives refuting the evidence of respondent.   When the respondent asserts that the car was repaired,  and all the parts were intact, the complainant did not take any steps to find out whether the  parts were intact.  Despite the fact that the Dist. Forum  has directed him to take delivery  of the car by order Dt. 29.5.2006  he did not take any steps.   On the other hand he filed an appeal belatedly with specious reasoning.   There was no deficiency in service on the part of  respondent.  On the other hand there are latches  on the part of the complainant, admittedly, he intends to make money by raising false plea that the parts were missing.  The complainant could not show  any  bonafides  on his part.  Whereas respondent could show  that it repaired the car in time.  This is a malafide claim by the complainant.   We do not see any  mis-appreciation of fact  by the Dist. Forum in this regard.  We do not see  any  merits in the appeal. 

          In the result the appeal is dismissed.   No costs. The appellant/complainant is directed to take back the car within two months after payment of  Rs. 24,963/-.

                   PRESIDENT                                       LADY MEMBER

                                            Dt.  24. 10. 2008.