Date of Filing:16.07.2009<br /> Date of Order: 05.01.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1661 OF 2009<br /> <br /> A.C. Chetan<br /> S/o. Late K.C. Chikkamuthaiah<br /> R/at No. 25, II Cross<br /> Vinayaka Layout, Bhoopasandra<br /> Bangalore 560 094 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. Pratham Motors Pvt. Ltd.<br /> No. 16, Sarjapur Marathahalli<br /> Outer Ring Road, Bellandur<br /> Bangalore 560 037<br /> Rep. by its Managing Director<br /> <br /> 2. Pratham Motors Pvt. Ltd.<br /> (Maruthi Authorised Dealer)<br /> No. 543/45, Sthankikam’s Arcade<br /> Opp. St. 132, Brigade Road<br /> Dr. Rajkumar Road, A Block<br /> 2nd Stage, Rajajinagar<br /> Bangalore 560 010<br /> Rep. by its Branch Manager Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of Maruthi Wagan R car bearing Registration No. KA 04 MD 8058. The complainant on 30.08.2007 handed over his vehicle to the opposite party No. 2 for repairs. The opposite party No. 2 informed the complainant that they did not have the required facility for repairing the aforesaid car and that they would shift the car to the opposite party No. 1 and accordingly, the aforesaid car was shifted to the opposite party No. 1 for repairs on 31.08.2007. Opposite party No. 1 issued a body repair job card / acknowledgment to the complainant with details of the damages caused to the aforesaid car, as a result of the aforesaid accident mentioning the expected delivery date as 17.09.2007. Opposite party No. 1 had delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 04.10.2007 i.e. after lapse of 17 days from the expected date of delivery. The complainant had visited the opposite party No. 1 about 4 to 5 times in taxi and he was made to undergo lot of hardship and mental agony during the period of repair of the said vehicle and the complainant had incurred more than Rs. 5,000/- towards taxi and auto charges when he made several visits to opposite party No. 1 before taking delivery of the said vehicle. After taking delivery of the said vehicle complainant felt that the said vehicle is not in perfect condition and hence, once again on 27.10.2007 the complainant had handed the said vehicle to the opposite party No. 2 for repairs and he took delivery of the said vehicle on 30.10.2007. The opposite parties failed to provide the proper service to the complainant as such the complainant had to under go great hardship and mental agony. Complainant issued legal notice calling upon opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. 55,000/-. Since, the opposite parties have failed and neglected to comply with the demands made by the complainant in his notice dated 3.3.2008, hence, this complaint seeking conveyance expenses of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation. <br /> 2. After admitting complaint notice issued to opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Opposite parties appeared through advocate and defence version filed stating that there is no cause of action against the opposite parties and there is no delay or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Complaint lacks merit and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. The complainant had chosen to file this complaint around 1.5 years after issuance of notice and there is no reason forthcoming for the delay. Complainant has not placed any material to establish delay or deficiency in service.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidence filed.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?<br /> 6. It is the case of the complainant that on 29.08.2007 there was an accident near Cantonment, Shivajinagar, Bangalore. On 30.08.2007 he handed over the vehicle ot the opposite party for repairs. On 31.08.2007 opposite party issued repair job card mentioning the expected date of delivery as 17.09.2007. But on the expected date of delivery the vehicle was not ready for delivery. Opposite party requested for some more days. Opposite party repaired the car and raised bill for a sum of Rs. 18,084/-. The vehicle was delivered on 04.10.2007 after the lapse of 17 days from the expected date of delivery. It is the case of the complainant that he visited the opposite party about 4 – 5 times and undergone lot of hardship. Therefore, he has incurred Rs. 5,000/- towards taxi and auto charges. The complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle from the opposite parties without putting any objections or protest on the date of delivery by paying the repair charges. Admittedly, the complainant taken the delivery of vehicle on 04.10.2007 and for the first time he got issued legal notice to the opposite party on 03.03.2008 i.e. after 5 months of taking delivery. The opposite party has replied to the notice on 10.03.2008 and explained reason for delay in repairing the vehicle in the reply notice. Thereafter, the complainant has not taken any steps for filing complaint before the fora claiming compensation etc. till 16.07.2009. The complainant has filed his complaint after more than 20 months of taking delivery of vehicle from the opposite party. Opposite party had sent reply notice in the month of March 2008 to the complainant denying their liability and the deficiency in service. Even after denial of liability the complainant had taken more than 14 months time to file his complaint. The complainant has not explained any reasons for such an inordinate delay to file complaint. Admittedly, as per the case of the complainant the opposite party has given expected delivery date on 17.09.2007. Since, the spare parts were not available and they have to be procured from the manufacturing unit and there was some delay in receiving the consignment from the manufacturer and ultimately, after receipt of the spare parts the vehicle was made ready and it was delivered to the complainant on 04.10.2007 to his satisfaction without any protest from the complainant. Delay of about 17 days from the expected date of delivery on the part of opposite party is not abnormal or unreasonable delay. The complainant has paid the bill without any protest. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons assigned by the opposite party for some delay it is not a fit case to grant compensation to the complainant for delay in delivering the vehicle. The complainant has not placed any acceptable material or documents to establish deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is not the case of complainant that the service rendered by the opposite party is not proper or against the specification. Even it is not the case of the complainant that the opposite party has not properly repaired his vehicle. So under these circumstances a mere delay of 17 days in giving delivery of vehicle it cannot be considered as deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />