Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/299/2023

S.Swarnambigai Motor, - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.Sivakumar, S/o Pachamuthu - Opp.Party(s)

M/s S.Parthasarathy

30 Sep 2024

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :        Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH              PRESIDENT

                       

F.A.NO.299/2023

(Against order in CC.NO.6/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Namakkal)

 

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024

 

M/s. Swarnambigai Motor

Ashok Leyland Light Vehicles                              M/s. S. Parthasarathy

Muthalaipatti, Salem Main Road                               Counsel for

Namakkal District- 637 003                               Appellant /Opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

P. Sivakumar

S/o. Pachamuthu

D.No.3/289, Vasantham Nagar                             M/s. P.T. Rakesh

Gandhipuram, Sendamangalam                                Counsel for

Namakkal District                                           Respondent/ Complainant                    

 

        The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission has allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.19.10.2022 in CC.No.6/2022.

 

          This appeal is coming before me for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for both parties, and upon perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.        The opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

 

2.        The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant had purchased a Ashok Leyland DOSR RLS BS-VI vehicle from the opposite party company on 25.11.2020.   After purchase of the vehicle, since the opposite party company closed due to the Covid -19 lock down, the complainant could not entrust the vehicle for service to the opposite party till the vehicle runs for 51,756 Kms, therefore, the complainant had left the vehicle for service to a private service station.   Subsequently, when the vehicle had developed some defect, the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party on 30.9.2021.  But the opposite party had demanded service charges stating that since the vehicle had run more than 50000 Kms the vehicle will not come under the warranty service.   The opposite party had not given any free service to the vehicle.  Thus alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite party to refund the service charges collected, and to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation for mental agony alongwith cost.

 

3.       The   Appellant/ opposite party, inspite of appearance through counsel had not filed their written version before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and had directed the opposite party to refund the service charges of Rs.13,789/- alongwith interest @6% p.a., and compensation of Rs.35000/- for mental agony, and Rs.2000/- towards cost.   Aggrieved over the order impugned, the opposite party has filed the present appeal, praying to set aside the order passed, and remand back the matter for fresh consideration.

 

4.       The learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party would contend that the opposite party had given first three free services to the complainant.  As per the policy of the opposite party, if the vehicle is not brought for service with the appellant regularly, then the warranty will not be covered.  The appellant company was working and available on every month of covid-19 lock down during 2020 and also during 2021.  Inspite of that the complainant had let the vehicle for service to a private service station.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.  The non-appearance and non-filing of version before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton.  If an opportunity is provided, the opposite party will have a fair chance of succeeding the case.  Thus, prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit. 

 

5.       The Respondent / Complainant appeared through counsel.  I have heard the submission on eitherside and perused the materials placed on record. 

 

6.       Based on the submissions, and on considering the nature of allegation, I am of the opinion that there is some force in the submission made by the appellant/ opposite party, and hence it would appropriate to decide the matter after considering the defence of the appellant/ opposite party.  Hence, when the matter had come up for hearing on 23.9.2024, I was inclined to allow this appeal in order to give a chance to the appellant/ opposite party to agitate their right on merit.  However, considering the lethargic attitude on the part of the opposite party in not appearing before the District Commission, this commission has directed the appellant/ opposite party to deposit a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the Legal aid account of the State Commission, on or before 27.9.2024, which was complied with.  Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 

7.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Namakkal in C.C.No.6/2022 dt.19.10.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Namakkal, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Namakkal on 30.10.2024, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellant/opposite party shall file the written version, proof affidavit, and the documents if any.  The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months, according to law on merit.  

 The amount deposited, by the appellant, shall abide the order of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.

 

 

                                                                              R. SUBBIAH

                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

INDEX : YES / NO

Rsh/dRSJ/ ORDERS