BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  :  MEMBER

C.C. No. 601/2015 Filed on 11.12.2015

ORDER DATED: 10.05.2018

Complainant:

M.V. Mathew, T.C 2/3177, PLRA-174, Panachamoodu Lane, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695004.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Service Advisor, Popular Hyundai, Popular Motor World Private Limited, T.C 11/1726, Charachira Road, Nanthencode, Kowdiar P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 003.

2. Service Advisor, Popular Hyundai, Popular Motor World Private Limited, Near Karamana Bridge, Neeramankara, Kaimanam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 040.

(By Adv. R. Balakrishnan Nair)

This case having been heard on 15.03.2018, the Forum on 10.05.2018 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. P. SUDHIR:  PRESIDENT

Gist of the complainant’s case is that complainant entrusted his car bearing No. KL-01 AW 7359 with the 1^st opposite party on 22.09.2015 for welding the leakage in the silencer pipe.  Opposite party returned the car in the evening after charging Rs. 1,368/- as welding charge.  While the complainant was travelling to Konni on 04.11.2015 the silencer pipe broken down into two pieces.  On examining the same it is noticed that no welding was done instead it was pasted with sealant.  The breakage of pipe is due to non-welding of the pipe by 1^st opposite party.  Complainant suffered a lot in the lonely and strange place.  Complainant informed the 1^st opposite party regarding that and 1^st opposite party responded without any guilty conscious told that 1^st opposite party will change the silencer with a new one and 1^st opposite party will reduce Rs. 1,368/-(the amount collected for welding) in the price of the new silencer.  Complainant changed the silencer by spending Rs. 5,714/- on 18.11.2015 by 2^nd opposite party.  Till then there is no response on the part of 1^st opposite party.  Hence complainant approached this Forum for redressal. 

Notice sent to opposite parties and opposite parties appeared and filed version. 

As per the version, the contention taken is that the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party with the issue of silencer leak, which is common among almost all cars of different make which is caused due to its age and its use.  The silencer (exhaust pipe) propels out the gases formed, carbon and other fumes through it and so in due time the same causes to the silencer (exhaust pipe) rust and corrosion.  Once in two or three years, regard to the use and age of the car, the silencer (exhaust pipe) can suffer from a leak.  It is only natural and is not a serious issue.  On 22.09.2015 the complainant’s vehicle was checked and the silencer (exhaust pipe) leak was traced.  The silencer was in a bad condition as it has rusted and corroded due to age and use.  The remedy for such cases is replacement and nothing else.  The same was suggested and advised to the complainant and the complainant was reluctant when he was told that the whole expenses for replacing the silencer would come around Rs. 5,000/-.  He asked for an alternative as he was not ready to pay that much amount at that time.  The service advisor of the opposite party has tried to convince him that the issue arisen was common and natural and the replacement was inevitable the complainant was adamant and asked to make an alternative arrangement instead of the said replacement.  The opposite party has never ever suggested, advised or directed the complainant to go for welding the silencer. The opposite party can never suggest, advise or direct so as it is not as per the guidelines of the manufacturers.  The complainant persuaded and compelled the opposite party to weld the silencer.  The opposite party further checked the silencer in detail and informed that the silencer has rusted and corroded and it is only a natural outcome as the vehicle was almost six years old and that it had run more than 21000 kilometres.   The complainant persuaded the opposite party and that he told that he cannot spend for a new silencer at that time.  The opposite party tried to convince the complainant that the silencer has rusted and corroded and that some portions of the same are coming off as flakes and the welding will not be effective.  Further the opposite party was constrained to weld it and in those portions where welding cannot be effected sealants were used.  It was a temporary remedy made due to the persuasion of the complainant and he was also told that the same will not last for more than two or three weeks and it is better that he change the silencer after a fortnight.  The complainant has used his vehicle for more than one and a half months after welding of the silencer.  Complainant did not turn up to replace the silencer after a fortnight as he was asked to.  Opposite party had welded those portions of the silencer that could be welded and the rest of the portions, flaky in nature, were met with the sealant.  It is only common knowledge that, the rusted, corroded, flaky portions cannot be welded.  The complainant is trying to cover up his fault and is trying to come out clean.  He persuaded the opposite party to make a temporary repair on the silencer when the remedy was to replace the silencer.  When the complainant came to the 1^st opposite party for replacement of the silencer the 1^st opposite party has no spare part and volunteered to order for the same.  But it is vehemently denied that the opposite party agreed to deduct the welding charges of Rs. 1,368/- incurred to the complainant from the price of the new silencer which is to be ordered for the vehicle of the complainant.  The incidents alleged to have happened on 04.11.2015 is not known to these opposite parties and hence denied.  The trauma said to have undergone by the complainant, if any, is not due to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. 

Issues:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of 1^stopposite party?
2. Whether the complainant isentitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Exts. P1 to P5(b) were marked.  PW1 cross examined by opposite parties.  Opposite parties filed chief and not cross examined. 

Here the case of the complainant is that 1^st opposite party has collected welding charge for welding his silencer (exhaust pipe) of his car without doing welding.  Ext. P2 is a vague bill in which the charge collected shown as labour services-tinkering/painting/welding/repairing –Rs. 1200/-.  If the silencer cannot be welded then how can opposite party collect the amount for welding.  So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable for that.  The complainant has claimed for the price of new silencer.  That cannot be allowed because complainant has to replace the silencer if this happened or not happened.  There is mental agony suffered by the complainant.  Hence we are of the opinion that opposite party is liable to refund Rs. 1,368/-, the amount collected as welding charge and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings and 2^nd opposite party is exonerated from liability.

In the result, complaint is allowed and 2^nd opposite party is exonerated.  1^st opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 1,368/- (Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Eight only) the amount collected as welding charge and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which Rs. 6,368/- (Rs. 1,368/- + Rs. 5,000/-) carries interest @ 6% per annum from the date of default till realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the10^th day of May 2018.     

        Sd/-

P.SUDHIR                             : PRESIDENT

         Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 601/2015

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - M.V. Mathew

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of repair order

P2     - Copy of credit invoice

P3     - Copy of repair order

P4     - Copy of credit invoice dated 18.11.2015

P5(a) - Copy of credit invoice dated 23.07.2015

P5(b) - Copy of service bill dated 24.07.2015

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb