Date of Filing 05.05.2023

                                                                                                Date of Disposal: 19.10.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),       …….PRESIDENT

THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                           ……MEMBER-I

CC.No.34/2023

THIS THURSDAY, THE 19^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

Mr.A.Pari,

 S/o.LateAppavu,

No.9, Dr.Ambedkar Nagar,

Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095......Complainant.

                                                                              //Vs//

1.Mr.Pazhani,

Prasanna Motors,

Authorised Main Dealer for

TVS Auto 3 Wheeler Company,

No.2/71, Poonamallee High Road,

Vanagaram, Chennai 600 095.

2.Responsible Manager,

TVS Motors Company Limited,

Service Department 3 Wheelers,

P.B.No.4, HaritaHosur -635 109.

Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu, India.…..Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the complainant: Party in Person.

Counsel for the 1^stopposite party: M/s.V.Murali, Advocate.

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party :exparte.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 09.10.2023in the presence of complainant who appeared in person and M/s.V.Murali, counsel for the 1^stopposite party and 2^nd opposite party was set exparte for non-appearance and for non-filing of written version and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant/Party in Person u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite partiesbeing dissatisfied with the service rendered by them along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Complainant who was the owner of the three wheeler Passenger vehicle purchased it from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.2,68,000/- financed by Sri Ram Finance.  The complainant purchased the vehicle for earning his livelihood and hence he was a consumer.  When the complainant had taken his vehicle for first service on 30.12.2022, Rs300/- for Head Light Bumper was charged from the complainant.  When asked for free service the technician asked the complainant to get service outside.  There is no CCTV fixed at the service station to watch the happenings.  Only after informing that a complaint would be filed before Consumer Commission the bumper was fixed free of cost.  The complainant was not permitted to be with the auto when the repairs were carried out.  The parts which were perfect in condition were damaged by the opposite party wantonly.  No bill was provided for the service charges collected.  No proper contact number was provided to the complainant to give complaint against the service station. Only motive of the 1^st opposite party is to sell the vehicles and not to provide any service to the buyers.  When complainant approached the Dealer Mr.Pazhani and his son to complain about the happenings at their service station they were not available and their contact numbers were not given to the complainant when requested.  Though the complainant had given his contact number in the service station and wanted them to call back till today nobody contacted the complainant.  While so, the vehicle was taken for second service on 23.02.2023 to the same place where the first service was done.  There was no proper technician and the technicians were not experienced.  One Mr.Venkatesan with little experience was entrusted the complainant’s vehicle for service. Due to his inexperienceMr.Venkatesan did oil service and grease services without doing water wash to the complainant’s vehicle. The complainant was asked to be present in separate room to avoid seeing the service.  When complained about the left door it was not rectified and Rs.1260 was charged.  However no bill was issued.  When questioned they insisted the bill could be collected from the service centre. When the vehicle was taken for 3^rdservice on 15.04.2023 there was no technicians and only Mr.Venkatesan and another technician was available at the service station.  Already there were 15 vehicles waiting for service.  On request the complainant’s vehicle was serviced but he was not permitted to be with the vehicle at the time of service.  The technician Mr.Venkatesan with malafide intention to cause damage to the vehicle did not replace the screw in the break drum which was dismantled.  When questioned it was fixed appropriately. At that timePrasanna Motors Dealer Mr.Pazhani and his son came in a car and threatened the complainant and ordered the vehicle to throw away.  They insisted that hereafter no service would be done for the complainant’s vehicle in their service station. As they threatened the complainant he immediately left the place.  The 2^nd opposite party was a famous vehicle manufacturer but failed to see that the 1^st opposite party dealer was a wrong person to whom the dealership was given.  Only believing the credentials of the 2^nd opposite party the complainant purchased the three wheeler vehicle.  Thus contending that both the opposite parties jointly caused unfair trade practice and deficiency in service the present complaint was filed for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- by the complainant/Party in Person.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 1^stopposite party:-

3.The 1^st opposite party denied that all the allegations put forth by the complainant with regard to the service rendered to his vehicle.  They contended that they did not threaten the complainant to give Rs.300/- for service.  The allegation that no contact number was provided to the complainant for giving complaint against the dealer Mr.Pazhani and his son was specifically denied.  It is submitted that all the owners/customers cannot be permitted at the place of service.  If permitted there would be no place for the technicians to do the service. This aspect when explained to the complainant he threatened that he belongs to a political party and would bring about 500persons to protest the opposite party. When the complainant was asked to take the vehicle after service instead of taking delivery he called the Police Control Room number 100 and complained against the opposite party.  The Police personnel arrived and after enquiry they came to know that it is a false complaint and advised the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle.  After filing the consumer complaint the complainant had given police complaint against the opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party also appeared for enquiry and after enquiry the officials held that there was no truth in the complaint.  During pending of the consumer complaint the complainant came to the opposite party service station.  However, as the complaint was pending no service was done to the complainant’s vehicle.  It is submitted that for more than 40 years the opposite party was doing service and as Dealer for the 2^ndopposite party doing service for more than 4 years.  Until this day no other person except the complainant had raised any complaint against the opposite party.  All the free services were properly done to the complainant.  Only for the oil change, amount was collected from the complainant and there was no unfair trade practice in the same. Thus stating that the complainant had come with false allegations against the 1^st opposite party they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A7were submitted. On the side of 1^stopposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were submitted. Though notice was received by the 2^nd opposite party he did not appear and file any written version and hence he was called absent and set exparte on 07.07.2023 for non-appearance and non-filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.

Points for consideration:-

1) Whether the allegations made by the complainant/Party in Person of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against the opposite parties has been successfully proved by the complainant with respect to the service carried out by opposite parties to the complainant’s vehicle?

2) If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

5. Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in supportof his contentions;

1. The Police complaint given by the complainant against the opposite party was marked as Ex.A1;
2. The proof of purchase of the vehicle and the acknowledgement given by the 1^st opposite party was marked as Ex.A2;
3. The documents related to first service dated 30.08.2008 was marked as Ex.A3;
4. The documents related to second service dated 13.11.2013 was marked as Ex.A4;
5. The complaint given by the complainant to the Deputy Superintendent of Police against the Officials of T4 Madhuravoyal Crime Branch for not investigating about the allegations of written version filed before Consumer Commission dated 03.08.2023 was marked as Ex.A5;
6. The Police complaint given by the complainant against the opposite party was marked as Ex.A6;
7. Electronic evidence (CD) was marked as Ex.A7;

On the side of 1^stopposite party the following documents were filed in proof of their defence;

8. Copy of Job Card for first service issued by the 1^st opposite party was marked as Ex.B1;
9. Copy of the Bill Invoice for issued by the 1^st opposite party dated 03.01.2023 was marked as Ex.B2;
10. Copy of Job Card for second service issued by the 1^st opposite party dated 23.02.2023 was marked as Ex.B3;
11. Copy of Bill invoice issued by the 1^st opposite party dated 23.02.2023 was marked as Ex.B4;
12. Copy of Job Card for 3^rd service issued by the 1^st opposite party dated 17.04.2023was marked as Ex.B5;
13. Copy of Bill Invoice issued by the 1^st opposite party dated 17.04.2023 was marked as Ex.B6;

            6. Inspite of sufficient opportunities the 1^st opposite party did not file any written arguments and hence the written arguments stage of the 1^st opposite party was closed.  No oral arguments wasalso adduced by the 1^st opposite party.  Hence based on the pleadings, evidences of both parties and written and oral arguments of the complainant this Commission proceeded to decide the complaint allegations on merits.

7. The complainant/Party in Person first and foremost argument is that the person who had filed vakalath for the 1^st opposite party did not provide his correct enrolment number.  Further he strongly objected for the representation made on behalf of the 1^st opposite party by some other Advocates on hearing dates and insisted that only the Advocate who had filed the vakalath should be present every time and only he should represent the case.  He also argued that the 1^st opposite party had provided false details in their written version and proof affidavit and hence they have committed offence under section 340CrPC.

8. The complainant even refused to accept the service of written version and proof affidavit stating that if he accepts the same it would amounts to accepting their defences.  Hence, the complainant received written version and proof affidavit only from Commission by filing copy Application

9.  The main grievance of the complainant is that the workshop did not file the CCTV footage and that the oil service and water service was not done in a proper manner. It is also his contention that no qualified mechanics were available at the service station and phone number was not provided for him to complain about the 1^st opposite party’s service. Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed.

10. On careful appreciation of the entire pleadings and materials available, as per the complainant his main grievance was that the service not done properly free of cost as assured and no qualified technicians were available.  The Electronic evidence (CD) produced by the complainant running for 3 minutes 15 seconds was also perused.  The Police complaint given by the complainant against the opposite party was marked as Ex.A1.  The proof of purchase of the vehicle and the acknowledgement given by the 1^st opposite party was marked as Ex.A2.  The documents related to the first service dated 30.08.2008 was marked as Ex.A3 wherein he had produced the free service coupon issued to him. However no bill was produced for charging Rs.300/- from the complainant as per the version of the complainant in the complaint. The documents related to second service was marked as Ex.A4 wherein also only free service coupon were produced.  The written Police complaint given by the complainant to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Koyambedu was marked as Ex.5 wherein the complainant has given complaint against the Officials of T4 Madhuravoyal Crime Branch for not investigating about the allegations of written version filed and impersonation before this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvallur.   Again another Police complaint given vide Ex.A6 with regard to same allegations of forgery and impersonation before this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvallur was filed.     Though several documents were filed by the complainant no substantial proof/evidence was filed by him to show that the 1^st opposite party had charged him for the service rendered in the name of “free of service”as no bill was filed by the complainant.  Further, no proof was submitted to show that the service done to his vehicle was of defective service.

11. The complaint averments are not clear and not presented in an legible, chronological manner.  The main averments are mere bald allegations against certain persons for which no proof was submitted by the complainant.  In such circumstances this Commission is of the view that the complaint allegations are not proved successfully by the complainant.  The complainant miserably failed to substantiate his allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against the opposite parties.  The complainant nowhere stated that the 1^st opposite party failed to do service to the complainant’s vehicle.  In the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of clarity and evidences. Further this Commission is of the view that it is a frivolous complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties without any substance. Thus this point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and as against the complainant.

Point No.2:-

12. As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove that the opposite parties had committed any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, he is not entitled any relief in this complaint.  Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.    

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 19 day of October 2023.

-Sd-                                                                                                                 -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                            PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 1^stopposite party:-

-Sd-                                                                                                        -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                        PRESIDENT