PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 17th day of August 2012
Filed on : 15/06/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.314/2011
Between
Ayoob Sait, : Complainant
S/o. Moosa Sait, 16/678, (By Adv. T.A. Abdul Rasheed,
T & R Cross Road, Sunil P. Nair Palakkatt,
Thoppumpady, Ernakulam. Central Law Chambers,
Ernakulam)
And
Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd, : Opposite party
Perandoor Road, (By Adv. George Cherian
Punnakkal, Elamakkara, Karippaparambil, Karippa-
Cochin -682 026. parambil Associates,
HB-48, Panampilly Nagar,
Kochi-682 036)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a businessman. The complainant purchased a maruti Alto car from the opposite party on 22-11-2011 with the financial assistance of State Bank of India, Kochi. Later the vehicle was registered as KL-43 C 1566. In connection with the second service when the vehicle ran 4300 kmts, the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the opposite party on 10-05-2011. The opposite party agreed to re-deliver the vehicle on 14-05-2011. On 14-05-2011 at about 3.30 p.m the staff of the opposite party ;informed the complainant that the vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle is garaged at Ernakulam town North Police Station. The complainant came to know that the vehicle had been thoroughly damaged and its value has been reduced. The complainant had to spend Rs. 1,000/- per day for his traveling expenses since 14-05-2011. At that juncture the complainant requested the opposite party to make available a brand new vehicle. But the opposite party did not pay any attention to the claim of the complainant. On 19-05-2011 the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite party raising his contentions. The opposite party sent a reply stating untenable contentions whatsoever. The vehicle met with the accident while the vehicle was in the custody of the opposite party. There is lack of service or failure of service on the part of the opposite party in not returning the vehicle in proper condition. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party either to replace the vehicle with a new one or to pay Rs. 1,60,000/- towards damages sustained on account of the accident of the vehicle together with compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per day from the date of accident till the date of delivery.
2. The version of the opposite party.
The opposite party had received the vehicle of the complainant on two occasions for accident repairs. Thereafter on 14-05-2011 while the opposite party’s employee, on the way to deliver the vehicle to the complainant at Thoppumpady, met with an accident at Pallimukku. The damage was minor in nature and the affected parts were only the front hood, the head lamps, front bumper and condenser assembly. In order to ensure the maximum satisfaction of the complainant, the opposite party though the aforesaid 4 parts could have been repaired, opted to replace those four parts. After the repairs complainant’s vehicle is in an immaculate condition. In the meantime the complainant was provided with a Vagon R car for his traveling requirements. On 16-05-2011 the vehicle was completely repaired by replacing the above parts. Thereafter the opposite party intimated the complainant to return the stand by vehicle and to accept the complainant’s vehicle. At that point of time the complainant demanded a brand new vehicle and the opposite party was constrained to take back their vehicle on 18-05-2011. In reply to the notice of the complainant the opposite party stated the real facts. The complainant had already taken delivery of his vehicle at his risk. The complainant has no surviving cause of action against the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B12 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the opposite party.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a brand new
vehicle from the opposite party or to get a compensation of
Rs. 1,60,000/- for the damages sustained ?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of
Rs. 1,000/- per day from 14-05-2011 to the delivery of the
vehicle?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get costs of the
proceedings from the opposite party ?
5. Point No. i. The following issues are not disputed by the
parties.
a. The complainant purchased a brand new maruti car from the
opposite party on 22-11-2010 at a price of Rs. 3,29,442/-
b. On 10-05-2011 the complainant entrusted the vehicle with
the opposite party for the service of the same.
c. On 14-05-2011 on the way from the opposite party’s
workshop to the complainant’s residence the vehicle met
with an accident at the hands of the opposite party’s
employee.
d. The opposite party repaired the vehicle at their own cost.
e. In the meanwhile the opposite party provided a standby
vehicle to the complainant till 18-05-2011 and the same was
taken back.
6. However during the proceedings in this Forum the complainant took delivery of his vehicle from the opposite party on 07-09-2011 after endorsing full satisfaction of the repairs.
7. According to the complainant extensive damages were caused due to the accident of the vehicle and the resale value of the vehicle had been depreciated considerably. On the contrary the opposite party contented that the vehicle is in good condition and the same was reported by the expert commissioner in Ext. C1 report.
8. At the instance of the opposite party an expert commissioner was appointed by the Forum and his report was admitted in evidence without demur on either side. The conclusion as per Ext. C1 reads as follows:
“Conclusion
The photos submitted and the parts replaced confirm that the damage sustained to the vehicle is minor. All the parts replaced were fixed to the vehicle with nut and bolts except the lower cross member. W/S glass and vital body parts like, apron panel RH, LH member side RH,LH, dash panel, cowl top & upper panel, panel side body RH LH were without any damage, Engine, gear box and suspension were also intact. Considering the above facts I am of the opinion that
1) The vehicle was rebuild to a pre accident condition by replacing damaged parts.
2) The depreciation on the market value of vehicle Reg. No. KL43C 1566 by the alleged accident on 14-05-2011 is nil.
3) The actual market price will not get affected for a minor accident. But for major accidents were vital body parts and mechanical parts were damaged, the actual market price of the vehicle will be reduced.
4) The internal parts of the vehicle were not affected by the accident and seem to be without any damage.”
9. It is pertinent to note that the witness for the opposite party filed proof affidavit and mounted the box to depose the case of the opposite party. The evidence of DW1` the witness for the opposite party remained unchallenged. The expert commissioner unequivocally substantiated matters as explained. The preference of the complainant to refrain from the further proceedings as per law calls for explanations unforthcoming which ordinarily would amount to admission. For reasons above stated the proceedings stand closed not to mention rejection of compensation and costs of the proceedings.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17th day of August 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Lawyer notice dt. 19-05-2011
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 12-05-2011
A3 : Copy of reply notice
dt. 31-05-2011
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 27-05-2011
C1 : Commission report
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext B1 : Job card dt. 21/12/2010
B2 : Claim for Motaor Vehicle
B3 : Copy of job card
B4 : Photo copy
B5 : Photo copy
B6 : Reply lawyer notice
dt. 31-05-2011
B7 : Postal receipt
A8 : A.D. card
A9 : Lawyer notice dt. 22-06-2011
A10 : Postal receipt
A11 : Satisfaction Note
A12 : copy of extracts of the Minutes
Depositions:
PW1 : Ayub Sait
DW1 : Jaimi George
