Date of filing : 10-03-2006 Date of order : 01-06-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.28/06 Dated this, the1st day of June 2009 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER B.M. Yoosuf, S/o.Mammunhi, Thoufiq Manzil, Opp.P.K. Nagar, } Complainant Po. Bambrana, Kasaragod.Dt. 1. Pradeep (Staff) Har Cars, Nullippay, } Opposite parties Po. Kasaragod. 2. Anil Kumar.K.N, Sales Officer, Har Cars, Nullippady, Po. Kasaragod. 3. The Proprietor, Har Cars, Nullippady. Po. Kasaragod. 4. The Proprietor, Har Cars, Har Avenur, Kannothumchal, Choova.Po, Kannur.6 O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT In short the case of the complainant is that inspite of his booking for a Maruti Alto LX Pearl Silver Car the opposite parties 1 to 3 instigated and compelled him to purchase a Maruti 800 Car and has given extra ordinary assurance in mileage and maintenance. Another allegation is that the said car involved in an accident entrusted for repair with opposite party during the warranty period was not delivered within 3days as promised and that apart a sum of Rs.3065/- is collected from him towards repair charges. Since the accident was occurred during the period of warranty the vehicle should have repaired free of cost. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties the instant complaint is filed. 2. According to opposite party they are the dealers of the Maruti Car and they have never intimated the complainant that the vehicle will get a mileage of 31 KM/pl. The warranty offered to the vehicle doesnot cover repair work on accident. The accident is caused not due to any fault of the manufacturer and therefore the complainant is liable to pay the repair charges. The further allegation that the vehicle was delivered after repair with much delay is also not correct. Hence there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Complainant filed affidavit and Exts A1 to A5 marked. Opposite party No.4 filed counter affidavit and produced Ext.B1. Both sides heard and the documents perused. 4. The specific case of the complainant is that in place of 31 KM/pl as told by the Ist and 2nd opposite party the Maruti Car is getting only 15 to 17 KM/pl. The second grievance is that the vehicle was taken to opposite party for accidental repair was delivered only after 10 days of entrustment instead of the assurance to deliver the same within 3 days. Moreover Rs,3065/- is collected by opposite parties towards the repair charges and the complainant paid the said amount under protest. 5. The averment that the opposite parties 1 & 2 assured that the Maruti 800 car will run 31 KM/l is not believable. Being a popular brand everybody knows the mileage of Maruti800 CC Car. The complainant should have a case if the manufacturer of the vehicle offered a mileage of 31 KM/l and his vehicle was not having such a mileage. 6. The further averment is that the opposite party collected a sum of R.3065/- towards the repair charges of the car that was involved in a road accident. Against this allegations the contention of the opposite parties is that the total bill for the entire work including labour and material was Rs.9667/- out of the said amount the insurer had paid a sum of Rs.6602/- and the balance was collected from complainant. The warranty will not cover the accidental repair. No excess amount is collected. According to complainant the damages caused after accident was only external and the opposite party offered to deliver the vehicle within 3days. But as per Ext.A5 invoice the spare parts that is fixed inside the bonnet like Air cleaner, assembly tank assembly wiper etc are seen replaced. But to prove the nature of damages sustained complainant has not produced any documents and that apart insurer will make the payment only after a surveyors examination and report. Hence these allegations are also found baseless. The further allegation is that the opposite party promised to deliver the vehicle within 3 days after entrustment of accidental repair. But opposite parties denied this allegation. To substantiate this allegation there is absolutely no evidence is brought before us. As per Ext.B1 the preparation of job card is on 31-1-06 and the vehicle was delivered on 7-2-06. This cannot be regarded is an inordinate delay. 7. We have come across a number of complaints alleging late delivery of vehicles after repair than that is promised at the time of entrustment. It would be better to fix a column in the job card or work order showing the probable date of delivery. If that be so in future such complaints could have avoided. Therefore the opposite parties are directed accordingly to carry out such changes in the job card/work order. In the result complaint fails and hence dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Order Booking form A2.19-5-05 Receipt for Rs.50,000/- A3.17-5-05 Receipt for Rs.5000/- A4.Insurance Certificate A5. Retail Invoice B1. Vehicle History Card. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
