Kerala

Idukki

CC/77/2021

sanill baby - Complainant(s)

Versus

Popular vehicle service - Opp.Party(s)

20 Dec 2022

ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING : 22/06/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 20^th day of December 2022

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SMT.ASAMOL P.                                                          MEMBER

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.77/2021

Between

Complainant                             :  Sanil Baby,

                                                     Pathiyarathuparambil House,

                                                     Valara P.O., Ozhuvathadam,

                                                     Adimaly, Idukki District,

                                                      Kerala, Pin – 685 561.

                                                           And

Opposite Party :                      :   1 .  Popular Vehicle and Services Ltd.,

                                                          Aarakkuzha Road, Perumbavoor P.O.,

                                                           Muvattupuzha – 686 673.

                                                      2  Popular Vehicle and Services Ltd.,

                                                          Koottukaran Centre, Mamangalam,

                                                          Kochi- 682 025.

                                                         (Both by Adv.Lal K.Joseph)

O R D E R

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Complainant raised the following allegations against opposite parties and sought for the reliefs mentioned hereunder:-

 

1 . Complainant purchased Alto 800 having Granite Grey colour on 24/03/2021 from first opposite party and the same was handed over to him by their staff Mr.Ajas.  But it was given without sufficient safety check.  On the first travel itself, complainant noticed low brake issue and warning indicator (ABS) was on at that time.  He immediately informed opposite party’s executive over phone and through WhatsApp on 25/03/2021.  But the executive replied that new vehicles are such type.

                                                                                                 (Cont.....2)

-2-

 

Then he called above Ajas and informed above low brake issue and that air conditioner was not functioning properly and also that there was noise from front dash board and requested him to rectify the defect but he refused the same.  Later he regularly contacted second opposite party’s office.  Then they informed that vehicle would be taken by them and rectify the same, but nothing was done.  Later above Ajas and staff from second opposite party’s office informed him that he had to bring the vehicle at service centre, Adimali.

 

Then on 30/03/2021, he brought the vehicle at above service centre but is was returned stating that there was no facility for rectifying the defects.

 

Thereafter he contacted above Ajas several times to take the vehicle with the help of mechanic, he informed the complainant that only if the vehicle was brought to above service centre, he can try to cure the defects.   As per instruction from above Ajas and from office of second opposite party, he brought the vehicle at Adimali service centre and entrusted the same to one Praveen.  Later, it is informed him that vehicle was brought by them to Kothamangalam and rectified the defects.  But he noticed that painting was gone on certain parts of the car.  Besides, there was noise at front left tyre portion also which caused disturbance to him.   

 

As the car was delivered without ensuring quality safety check, he had to face various difficulties.  He is a painting worker and during rainy seasons, he could not use the vehicle for travelling to work place and he could not attend various functions. 

 

He raised the following allegations also.

 

a . Painting and functioning of the vehicle is not upto the mark.

 

b . Eventhough opposite parties offered free accessories, they charged the same but had not given Maruti Floor Mat, Rain Guard and Perfume.

 

                                                                                                 (Cont.....3)

-3-

 

c . When the vehicle was entrusted to Adimali service centre for curing defects, they realised Rs.1319/- towards first service.

 

d . Eventhough they realised Rs.7500/- for central lock system, they had fitted the same valued Rs.6500/- only.

 

e.  After realising Rs.500/- for fastag system, Rs. 200/- only was credited in his fastag account.

 

f . Though excess amount of Rs.1239/- including bank charge totalling to Rs.1916/- was collected in excess, it was not reflected in final settlement bill.

 

g . Refundable amount of Rs. 2427/- was not refunded.

 

Hence he prayed for following reliefs.

 

1 . Direct opposite parties to replace new vehicle and the expenses for the same to be borne by them.

2 . Refund the service charge recovered Rs.1319/- while it was given for curing defects.

3 . Install the central lock system for the recovered amount of Rs.7500/- or in the alternative to refund the amount.

4 . To credit full amount recovered in his fastag account.

5 . Give him free offered accessories like Maruti Floor Mat, Perfume and Rain Guard.

6 . Refund  Rs.1239/- recovered in excess in the guise of bank charge.

7 . Refund the customer refundable amount of Rs.2427/-.

8 . Loss of Rs.1300/- including his labour charges Rs.900/-, petrol and other expenses Rs.400/- for bringing the vehicle to Adimali on 30/03/2021 for check-up.

9 . Loss of Rs.2500/- towards petrol and other expenses for bringing the vehicle for repair to Adimali on 16/04/2021 and return journey.

 

                                                                                                 (Cont.....4)

-4-

 

10 . One instalment of loan amounting to Rs.4928/- for failure of vehicle and loss of his work resulted in difficulty to remit loan amount.

11.  Loss of Rs.10800/- towards labour charge and other expense of Rs.7200/-.

 

Opposite parties filed written version as follows.

 

The complaint is bad for Non-Jointer of necessary parties and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.  Eventhough complainant had sought first relief for replacement of the vehicle, he had failed to implead the manufacturer in the party array.  Opposite party is only a dealer-cum-service centre of the vehicle manufactured by Maruti Suzuki.  The complainant is alleging that, the vehicle delivered to him is not of specified quality and had not undergone security tests.  The other contention of the complainant is that, the painting and the working of the vehicle is not up to the mark.  Since, the warranty of the vehicle is offered by the manufacturer and the opposite parties are not offering any warranty over and above the warranty offered by the manufacturer, the demand for the replacement of the vehicle had to be met by the manufacturer. Opposite party is selling the vehicle, which are handed over to it by the manufacturer, without making any modifications or alterations.  Hence the complaint filed without impleading the manufacturer, deserves nothing but a dismissal.

 

The complaint filed by the complainant is a frivolous and vexatious one.  The reliefs sought by the complainant are pertaining to the settlement of A/c, which is outside the purview of the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

The complaint submitted by the complainant will not come under the purview of the “Complaint” as defined under section 2(6) of the Consumer Protection  Act, 2019, since the “service” provided by the opposite parties is not suffering from any “Deficiency” as defined under Section 2(11) of the Act and the “good”, vehicle herein is not suffering from any “defect” as defined under Section 2(10) of the Act.

                                                                                                 (Cont.....5)

-5-

The purchase of the subject matter vehicle as mentioned in the unnumbered first paragraph of the complaint is accepted by the opposite parties.

 

The contention of the complainant that, on the way to home after delivery, the complainant had noticed the improper functioning of the brake of the car and warning indication of the ABS are specifically denied by the opposite parties.  The complainant had first intimated about the glowing of ABS on 25/03/2021 on 10.40 pm.  The official of the opposite party had promptly responded towards the issue faced by the complainant and instructed him to submit his vehicle to the service station of his choice for fixing the issue, as early as possible.  But, the contentions to the contrary as mentioned  by the complainant is specifically denied by the opposite parties.

 

The contention of the complainant that, the brake of the vehicle was low during that time is specifically denied by the opposite party.  The antilock braking system (ABS) control module is a microprocessor that runs to do diagnostic checks of a vehicle’s ABS.  It processes information from wheel-speed sensors and the hydraulic brake system to determine when to release braking pressure at a wheel that is about to lock up and start skidding.  Antilock systems prevent skidding of a vehicle, when applied brake.  But, it never indicates that, the vehicle is having a compromised/less braking.  A warning light for the ABS is supposed to illuminate briefly every time one starts his car.  If the warning light stays on , that means the antilock system is facing a technical issue.  But, prior to the glowing of the same, no inspection

of the vehicle would indicate the appearance of the issue.  So, the contention of the complainant that, the vehicle’s security system was not properly examined by the opposite parties prior to the delivery is specifically denied by the opposite party, as it is factually untrue.

 

In response to the contentions of the complainant in the unnumbered 3^rd to 6^th paragraphs of the complaint, it is respectfully submitted that, even if the

 

 

 

                                                                                                 (Cont.....6)

-6-

 

opposite parties had requested the complainant to submit his vehicle to the service station of his choice on receipt of his concern regarding ABS, he had waited till 16/04/2021 for submitting his vehicle before the service station Adimaly, as per his convenience and instructed the opposite parties to drive it to Kothamanglam Service Station for correcting his issue regarding ABS.

 

As per the warranty mandates, the complainant is duty bound to provide first free service to the vehicle within covering 1000kms or within 1 month of purchase of vehicle, whichever happens first.  Since the complainant had purchased his vehicle on 24/03/2021, he had submitted the same on 16/04/2021 for availing first free service.  On the date of his submission, he had also expressed concern regarding Steering Hard issue, Brake not effective issue and issue regarding abnormal noise from dashboard, along with his earlier concern for ABS and resolved all his issues.  But, the contention of the complainant that, he had submitted concern regarding improper working of Air Condition is factually untrue and the same is specifically denied by the opposite parties.  It was the complainant, who had delayed the submission of his vehicle for getting service, while the opposite parties were promptly instructing him to submit the same for clearing the issue of ABS.  The contention of the complainant that, eventhough he had submitted his vehicle on 30/03/2021, but he was returned without effecting repair is specifically denied by the opposite party.

 

After the completion of the service, the complainant had accepted his vehicle on 17/04/2021, with complete satisfaction, after testing it thoroughly.  The contention of the complainant that, he had noticed damage to paint of the

vehicle on some parts and that some abnormal sound from left side tyre portion is specifically denied by the opposite parties, as it is utter falsehood. 

These allegations are made by the complainant for grabbing sympathy of this Honourable Commission.  If the complainant is having any concern with the functioning of the vehicle, he is duty bound to report the same to the opposite parties and get it rectified through the machinery of the opposite party.  Without exhausting his right, he had approached this Hon’ble Commission with malafide intention.

                                                                                                 (Cont.....7)

-7-

 

The opposite parties had  sold the subject matter vehicle to him, without assuring the quality and without doing safety test is specifically denied by the opposite parties as they are far from reality.  It is respectfully submitted that, the vehicle purchased by the complainant is defect free and the “ABS” issue of his vehicle and other issues submitted by him are cleared by the opposite parties on warranty by replacement of parts and over hauling of parts, as evident from the “Recommendations” in the Job Card Retail-Tax Invoice dated 17/04/2021.

 

The complainant had not sustained any inconveniences or damages due to his purchase of the vehicle through the opposite parties.  The allegations to the contrary as enlisted by the complainant are specifically denied by the opposite parties.  The painting and performance of the subject matter vehicle is as per the specifications of the model and the allegations to the contrary in paragraph 8(1) are to be proved by the complainant with cogent evidence.

 

The product price of the vehicle is Rs.2,82,093.02/-.  The opposite parties had offered him discount for a total amount of Rs.21,615.39/-.  Since, the product price was accordingly reduced to 2,60,477.64/-, he was liable to pay 28% GST and 1% Cess on that amount itself, thereby allowing him to avail a total discount amount of Rs.28,100/-.  Thus, towards Rs.3,66,721/- the complainant had to pay only Rs.3,38,621/-.  At the time of the registration of the vehicle, the opposite parties had to remit a total amount of Rs.34,240/- (including Rs.33,005/- the tax amount upto 31/12/2035) through Parivahan

portal.  While the complainant had expressed his intention to purchase accessory articles worth more than Rs.13,183/-, he had accepted articles worth only Rs.5,750/-, availing discount of Rs.5,000/- towards the same.  It is respectfully submitted that, the complainant was never offered with Floor Mat.  He was offered with Full Mat and the same is already fitted on his car.  The Perfume and Rain Guard offered to the complainant are already reached his nearest service station at Adimaly long back.  But, even though he was intimated a number of times to entrust vehicle for enabling the opposite

 

 

                                                                                                 (Cont.....8)

-8-

 parties to affix these accessories, the complainant had failed to submit his vehicle.  These being the real facts, all the contentions to the contrary in paragraph 8(2) and Relief No.5 are specifically denied by the opposite parties.

 

The first service of the vehicle is normally calculated based on the invoice date.  So, as the customer service policy of the opposite parties, these opposite parties used to caution all its customers regarding the upcoming service date.  The complainant was also cautioned by the opposite parties in the same manner.  But, since the complainant had submitted his vehicle for clearing his ABS issue, the first service was performed on that date, in order to avoid the inconvenience that would be caused to the complainant  for submitting his vehicle once again for availing first free service.  As per the Maruti Service Policy only the labour for the free service is charged “Free”.  But, the products for the same are liable to be charged.  Hence, there occurred a total service charge towards products is Rs.1,319/-.

 

The subject matter vehicle is affixed with Central Lock System worth Rs.7,500/-.  But, the amount received was:

The unit price of the product	Rs.6,050/-
GST 18%	Rs.1,089/-
Cess	Rs.18.49/-
Fitting Charge	Rs.342.51/-
Total	Rs.7,500/-
Discount	Rs.342.51/-
Amount received	Rs.7,157/-

 

Regarding Fast Tag, it is respectfully submitted that,

 

Initial Top up towards Fast Tag	Rs.200/-
Security Deposit	Rs.200/-
Issuance Fees	Rs.84.75/-
GST	Rs.15.25/-
Total initial Fast Tag Amount	Rs.500/-

                                                                                                 (Cont.....9)

-9-

 

It is respectfully submitted that, the complainant had paid Rs.60,239/- at Muvattupuzha  Service Centre through his Credit Card swipe, towards his balance settlement amount of Rs.59,000/-.  The balance amount of Rs.1,239/- received is the due to the bank (2.1% bank charges on Credit Card Swipe).   The contention of the complainant that, the opposite parties had recovered an additional amount of Rs.1,916/- is specifically denied by the opposite parties.  Rs.2,427/- is the offer price given to the complainant.  The complainant had deliberately suppressed the fact that, he had received accessories worth Rs.5,676/-, availing a discount of more than Rs.5,000/-

 

The subject matter vehicle is not having any kind of defects as alleged by the complainant.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled to entertain his fist relief for replacement of the vehicle or get repaid the amount received by the opposite parties as the sale price of the vehicle used by the complainant to his satisfaction for uses until now.

 

The contentions of the complainant reveal that he had sustained some loss, while submitting his vehicle for availing services from the opposite parties.  It is respectfully submitted that, when the complainant purchases a vehicle from the opposite parties, he had undertaken to provide necessary services to the vehicle on time.  Hence, the expenses if any incurred by him are not liable to be reimbursed from the opposite parties, since it was his duty to provide necessary/timely services to his vehicle for its life and sustained performances. 

 

The vehicle purchased by the complainant is not having any inherent defect as alleged by the complainant.  The said averments are made only to suit the complaint and the purpose is to mislead this Honourable Tribunal.  It is respectfully submitted that, whenever the vehicle was entrusted with the first opposite party, the same was returned to the complainant after clearing the minor complaints to his best satisfaction and on ensuring that vehicle is operating to its fullest capacity.  Even though, the business and travels were

 

                                                                                                     

                                                                                             (Cont.....10)

-10-

 

reduced to the minimum the complainant had covered 564 kms as on 16/04/2021 evidences the good performance of the vehicle.  Since the complainant had not lost his work or programs, he is not entitled to claim the EMI amount of his loan as claimed in relief No.10.

 

The opposite party is only a dealer of the vehicle manufactured by the Maruti and they have carried out their duty by providing the after sales services promptly.  This opposite parties has carried out the work that has been entrusted as per the requirement and needs of the complainant, by strictly following guidelines of the manufacturer.  The complaint is filed by the complainant with the sole intention to harass the opposite parties.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of these opposite parties.

 

The complainant does not have any cause of action against the opposite parties.  The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought in the complaint.

 

Though many opportunities were granted to complainant, he has not appeared for tendering evidence.  Opposite parties was also not appeared personally for tendering evidence if any or produced any documents.  No representation for complainant and opposite parties on the last posting date.  Hence evidence closed and taken for orders.

 

As both sides are not vigilant in attending the proceedings, this complaint is disposed of on merits based on materials available on record.

 

Complainant had filed copy of following alongwith complaint.

 

1 . Customer account final settlement bill dated 24/03/2021.

2 . Cash receipt voucher dated 03/03/2021 issued by opposite parties regarding booking advance amount Rs.1000/-.

 

3 . Receipt voucher dated 13/03/2021 for Rs.30,000/- issued by opposite parties regarding fund credited by complainant.                                                                                                 

                                                                                         (Cont.....11)

-11-

 

4 . Bank receipt voucher dated 04/03/2021 regarding booking advance amount Rs.20,000/-.

 

5 . Bank receipt voucher dated 20/03/2021 regarding balance amount for car purchase Rs.59,000/- plus bank charges Rs.1,239/- (Total Rs.60,239/-)

 

6 . Counter sale retails invoice dated 13/04/2021 for Rs.2,309/- in respect of sale of accessories like mud flap, D/VSR ALT 800, Grip black stirring Swift and PRF d/Brd Gel etc.

 

7 . Counter sale retail invoice dated 22/03/2021 for Rs.5,750/- for sale of body side moulding Alto -800 and SEC W/o SS Alt 800.

 

8 . Whats App Chat Screen Shot  dated 25/03/2021 and 26/03/2021.

 

9 . Whats App Chat and Screen Shot of dash board of the car dtd.nil.

 

10 . Google Map and photo dated 30/03/2021 of a car having no legible number.

 

11 . Whats App Screen Shot dated 20/03/2021, 22/03/2021 and 23/03/2021.

 

12 .  Screen Shot dated 11^th April of incoming call from +914846675901 for a duration of 8 minutes 21 seconds.

 

13 . Screen Shot dated 24/03/2021 about the handing over  key of a car.

 

14 . Job card detail- tax invoice dated 17/04/2021 for Rs.1,319/- regarding sale of floor mat, wheel tag, gasket, filter assembly, oil etc. For Rs.1,318.92/-.

 

15 . Itemwise amount of car, tax, extended warranty etc., issued by opposite parties.                                                                                                  

                                                                                 (Cont.....12)

-12-

 

16 . Photo of Bonet opened position of Suzuki Car (Reg.No. not legible) and  no date is shown.  Mobile support car is also seen parked nearby to the above car.

 

On a perusal of the averments of both sides and the documents produced by complainant following points arise for consideration.

 

1 . Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and if so for what reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

 

2 . Litigation costs?

 

Point No.1

 

On going through the averments of complainant, it is seen that certain allegations were raised regarding the quality of the car, painting etc.  As the same pertains to manufacturing, the complainant ought to have included the manufacturer of the vehicle in party array.  He has not done so even after filing the written version by opposite party stating the non-jointer of manufacturer.  Since he has not impleaded manufacturer, he has to suffer the consequences.  Non- joinder of parties is fatal in so far relief of replacement is concerned.  This Commission  can  proceed with the complaint and decide the case with the  parties appearing.  So the contention of opposite party on this score is not sustainable.  But contesting opposite parties  cannot take shelter of above contention for the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.  Opposite party has not filed any documents to substantiate their contentions.  So we are not inclined to accept the contentions as such raised by opposite parties.  At the same time, complainant has not made out a concrete case warranting replacement of vehicle and to bear the expenses thereof by opposite parties.

 

 

                                                                                                                     

                                                                                               (Cont.....13)

-13-

 

On going through the documents produced by complainant, it is seen that certain contentions of complainant are having force.  Certain conversations regarding complaint of vehicle  is discernible from the Whats App Chat.  As per document No.1 shown above, excess amount of Rs.2427/- is seen with opposite parties.  No evidence  was adduced by opposite parties to prove that this excess amount was refunded to complainant.    No evidence to prove refund of this amount is produced by them.  Hence complainant is entitled to get a refund of above Rs.2427/- from opposite parties.  Another allegation is that call from opposite  parties was received requesting to produce vehicle for first service, which was to mislead him and on that basis, he produced vehicle at Adimali Service Centre for repair, an amount of Rs.1319/- was wrongly collected from him.  But on verification of document No.14, no service charge was collected as the same is free service and obviously, it was for certain accessories like paper floor mat, wheel tag, engine oil etc.  Moreover, as per the above document the complainant has acknowledged the service carried out and conformed that his vehicle was in good condition.  So the contention of the complainant is found to be unsustainable.  Another allegation that though opposite parties has collected Rs.7500/- for Central Lock Systm, they have fitted above item valued Rs.6050/- only.  But he did not adduce any evidence to prove that for which Model and Company’s product was offered for Rs.7500/- and which company’s product is installed.  At the same time opposite parties  have stated itemwise bifurcated value of the product.  It can be proved only by physical verification of the same by an expert.  No action was taken by complainant for the same.  So the contention of complainant cannot be accepted.  Yet another allegation regarding levy of amount of fastag is also found to be unsustainable for the reason that no evidence thereof is produced 

by complainant. Opposite parties have stated the bifurcation of total amount of Rs.500/- received by them on this count.  So the contention of complainant is not acceptable. The allegation that opposite party had charged excess amount of Rs.1239/- towards bank charge.  As per document No.5, it is seen that opposite parties had collected Rs.1239/- towards bank charge.   Opposite parties contented that it was charged due to swiping of credit card.   It is not

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                       (Cont.....14)

-14-

 

 the duty of a person to remit bank charge for the amount transferred to another person’s account.  In this case opposite parties  has not established that they are entitled to levy such charges as per law.  Levying illegal charges is an unfair trade practice.  In these circumstances, we find that complainant is entitled to obtain a refund of Rs.1239/-.  Complainant’s  contention regarding free offer of accessories like Maruthi Floor Mat, Perfume, Rain Guard etc., is also cannot be accepted as such.  Opposite parties have stated that they have not offered floor mat and the offered full mat was already fitted in the vehicle.  Perfume and rain guard offered were already entrusted at service station,  Adimaly.  So, complainant may obtain the same from there.  So this contention is partly allowed.  Regarding other allegation of the complainant about the manufacturing defect etc., contention of opposite parties cannot be accepted as such.  Though manufacturer is not a party to this complaint, being the authorised seller and service centre of the manufacturer, opposite party has a legal liability to conduct repair works etc., during the warranty period free of cost.    On going through document No.15, it is seen that opposite parties has shown Rs.5676/- towards Maruthi extended warranty (5^th year).  Besides,  every manufacturing company offers warranty for certain periods.  During that time, if any complaint in respect of the sold vehicle through authorised dealer is reported, they have to conduct the work thereof and reimburse the cost of parts if any changed etc from the manufacturer.  In the case of purchase of a vehicle, privity of contract is between the customer and the dealer.  A dealer cannot absolve from their liability to conduct repair.

 

In such a circumstance, the dealer is duty bound to conduct the work to the full satisfaction of the customer.  In this case, complainant  has not taken any steps to conduct inspection of the vehicle by an Expert Commissioner.

He has not produced the vehicle before the Commission also.  However, it is seen from various Whats App Chats etc., the complainant had informed the opposite party’s representative  regarding certain defects of the vehicle.  Opposite party has not produced any document like job card and bills issued etc., to prove that they had properly conducted the repairs complained of

                                                                                                                  

                                                                                       (Cont.....15)

-15-

 

 though they have stated in written version that they have done necessary repair work satisfactorily.  Such contentions are not supported by documents.  They have admitted in written version that complainant had pointed out certain issues like steering hard issue, brake not effective issue, abnormal noise from dash board, ABS issue etc., and all such issues were resolved  while the vehicle was given for first free service.  Relevant job card details about works done were not produced before this Commission.

 

 Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of  justice we find that it is proper to issue a direction to opposite parties in the following lines. If the complainant brings the subject matter vehicle before opposite parties authorised service centre of his choice after consultation with opposite parties  within 10 days of receipt of this order, they should conduct inspection of the vehicle by their Expert Service Engineer with regard to defects pointed out and admitted by them and  do the necessary works thereof free of cost if the warranty period is not over.  If the vehicle is produced as above, opposite parties should do the works at the earliest and the same should be free from all such defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. 

 

Complainant has failed to prove contention regarding compensation claimed on different counts.  Loss of work and other expenses incurred and resultant mental agony or injury is not established.  In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that complainant is not entitled to  compensation for the same. Point No.1 is answered as above.

 

Point No.2

 

On an entire analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case,  there will be no order as to costs.

 

In the result complaint is allowed in part with the following direction to opposite parties.

                                                                                                 

                                                                                             (Cont....16)

-16-

1 . Complainant shall produce the car in question before the opposite party’s authorised  service centre of his choice after consulting with opposite party within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order  and upon such an event,  opposite parties should conduct the inspection and do the repair work as directed above.  Opposite parties should conduct the necessary repairs thereof as directed above free of cost, if the warranty period is not over.  They are also directed to pay to the complainant Rs.2427/- (Rupees Two Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Seven only) being refund of excess amount collected by them and also Rs.1239/- (Rupees One Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Nine only) being  illegal charges  levied in the guise of bank charge with simple interest @ 12% from the date of complaint, ie 22/06/2021 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

2 . Opposite parties should give the free offer of perfume and rain guard to the complainant within the above period, if not complainant will be entitled for compensation of Rs.5000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase of car till realisation.

 

If the opposite parties fail to comply with this order, complainant is entitled to recover the amount ordered to be refunded with interest mentioned above till realization and also to take legal action for any violation regarding direction to conduct repair work mentioned above. Further directions to give free offer of perfume, rain guard in the alternate direction for compensation will be also executable as per the Act.

 

        Pronounced by this Commission on this the 20^th day of December, 2022.            

                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                 SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                  SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                             Sd/-                                                                                     

                                                                         SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER  APPENDIX

Nil                                                                      Forwarded by Order 

                                                                                         

                                                                              ASSISTANT REGISTRAR