Date of Filing:18.12.2008<br /> Date of Order:28.08.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009<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: 2736 OF 2008<br /> <br /> C.J. Raviprem,<br /> Microsoft India (R & D) Private Limited,<br /> Global Technical Support Center,<br /> No.105, DSR Pride, <br /> Near Pongi Palya, 24th main,<br /> HSR Layout, <br /> Bangalore-560 102. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. Prerana Motors (P) Ltd.,<br /> No. 132, II Floor, <br /> Kantha Court, Lalbagh Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 027.<br /> <br /> 2. Tata Motors Limited,<br /> Passenger Car Division<br /> 5th Floor, One Forbes<br /> Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg,<br /> Mumbai-400 023.<br /> <br /> 3. Fiat India Automobiles (P) Ltd.,<br /> B-19, Ranjangaon MIDC<br /> Industrial Area<br /> Ranjangaon-412210<br /> Taluk-Shirur,<br /> Dist-Pune. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> By the Member Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed u/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant had purchased a FIAT Stile Multijet SDX from Prerana motors, which is a Tata motors dealer in Bangalore bearing registration No. KA 01 MD 7386 Engine No.2724492 Chassis No. 17888F8069726FRZ. He took the delivery of car on 25th June-2008. He was very happy that he has a proud owner of a FIAT car. He was impressed with its new looks, interiors, space in the car and the Rock solid body. All went smoothly, till he met with an accident near Ananthpur. He was heading towards Hyderabad as his wife was hospitalized in Vizag for delivery of his child. The vehicle was not in a condition to drive post the accident and he approached TATA Motors dealer Prani motors in Ananthpur. They refused to take the vehicle because they do not have expertise in handling FIAT cars. During the time of purchase he was informed that you can take your FIAT to any TATA motors dealer for servicing or for any type of issues like repair with the car. But the above incident proves that it was not true. It is shocking to hear from the Prani Motors representative that FIAT cars are serviced only in metros. They suggested him to take the vehicle either to Hyderabad or Bangalore or to any metro as they do not have the expertise in handling FIAT cars. He had to take a lot of pain in and undergo mental agony just to ensure that the car was appropriately shifted from one TATA motors authorized dealer to another. He also had to incur costs of Rs.7,500/- to bring the vehicle to Bangalore along with several STD/Roaming calls. He was already under tremendous stress and mental tension during that time, with the maternity issue of his wife and on the other hand his vehicle was damaged. Once the vehicle reached Bangalore, he thought he was relieved of one tension but that did not happen but, worsened from here on again. Hence, the complainant plead to this Forum to kindly assist him in getting relieved of all this Torture and please to help in getting a refund of the money spent thus far along with compensation for the mental disturbance that he had to go through. Hence, this complaint. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared through counsel and submitted defence version stating that the M/s TATA Motors Ltd are the authorised service and sales center for M/s FIAT India Pvt. Ltd., However this does not signify or mean that all TATA Motors service centers would service FIAT India Pvt. Ltd., vehicles. It is brought to the notice that, M/s Tata Motors Ltd., manufactures commercial vehicles, passenger vehicles and are also the authorised service and sales center for M/s Fiat India Pvt. Ltd.,. This does not mean a customer, who was purchased a commercial vehicle from M/s TATA Motors Ltd., can take the vehicle to an authorized service centre of a passenger car division and ask for service. This is because each service center would have expertise and equipment to deal with the specific kind of vehicle. However in all the metros the authorised service center passenger car division of M/s TATA Motors Ltd has the expertise and the equipments to deal with M/s Fiat India Pvt. Ltd., other than the listed service center mentioned in the user’s manual. The authorised service center of M/s TATA Motors Ltd., passenger car division clearly indicate that on their name boards or other visible places if they are authorised service centre for M/s Fiat India Pvt. Ltd.,. The customer is also duty bound to peruse his owners manual and identified the nearest service center for his vehicle. This information is given to the customer through the user’s manual at the time of delivery of the vehicle and the customer cannot turn around and make allegations to the contrary. Although M/s Prani Motors in Ananthpur are the authorised service center of M/s TATA Motors Pvt. Ltd.,, they do not carry out sales and service of Fiat India Pvt. Ltd., vehicle and have informed the complainant regarding the same when the vehicle was brought to them. It may be true that M/s Prani Motors considering the plight of the complainant agreed to dispatch the car to M/s Prerana Motors in Bangalore. Again considering the plight of the complainant M/s Prerana Motors herein dispatched a towing agency from Bangalore to pick up the vehicle under the assurances from the complainant, that he would make good the payment to the towing company. After the vehicle was brought to Bangalore the complainant was reluctant to pay the amount and wanted the amount to be included in the insurance claim. However, M/s Prerana Motors Ltd refuses this suggestion and requested the complainant to pay the amounts to the towing agency directly. It is in this circumstance that the vehicle was towed to Bangalore and reached workshop in the evening on 23/10/2008 and the job card was raised on 24/10/2008 as the complainant was dilly dallying in making payments to the towing agency. It was clearly communicated to the complainant that he should pay the towing charges directly to the towing agency and collect the necessary bills. Further, he should submit the bill either to us before invoicing or he should furnish the towing bill directly to the Insurance company and get the amount reimbursed in his favour. It was clearly communicated to the complainant that the maximum amount of Rs.1,500/- will be reimbursed by the Insurance company, irrespective of the distance. The complainant requested for immediate delivery and this was not possible as it was an accident vehicle and involvement of the Insurance company inspection, surveyor report etc was involved. The opposite party No.1 further states that they had done an initial inspection of the vehicle and drew up an estimate and thereafter requested the concerned insurance company to inspect the vehicle. The vehicle was inspected by insurance company and the final estimation as per the inspection report was intimated to the complainant verbally with a request to send his consent for needful repairs. The opposite party No.1 having consideration for the complainant’s plight took a verbal request and sent up parts that were required for replacement during repairs. The complainant at that point of time kept calling the opposite party and was informed that the request for the same was sent to M/s Fiat India through M/s TATA Motors Ltd., and the complainant could follow up the same if he so decide. The complainant instead of just following the status had started raising complaint making false and reckless allegation. Hence, opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced before us following points arise for consideration:<br /> Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is admitted fact that, the complainant is the proud owner of FIAT Stile Multijet SDX Car. It is also an admitted fact that the said vehicle met with an accident near Ananthpur, Andhra Pradesh. The said vehicle was towed to Bangalore and reaches the work shop of opposite party on 23/10/2008 and job card was raised on 24/10/2008. The complainant requested for immediate delivery and this was not possible as it was a case that vehicle and suffered damage in accident. Involvement of the Insurance company, inspection, surveyor report etc was necessary. The opposite party No.1 further states that they had done into initial inspection of the vehicle and drew up an estimate and thereafter requested the concerned insurance company to inspect the vehicle. The vehicle was inspected by insurance company and the final estimation as per the inspection report was intimated to the complainant verbally with a request to send his consent for needful repairs. The opposite party No.1 having consideration for the complainant’s plight took a verbal request and took steps to secure parts that were required for replacement during repairs. The complainant at that point of time kept calling the opposite party and he was informed that, they waiting for spare parts,and was informed that the request for the same was sent to M/s Fiat India through M/s TATA Motors Ltd., and the complainant could follow up the same if he so decides. The complainant instead of just following the status had started raising complaints. It is true that the certain parts were not available and had to be procured from the manufacturing unit as these were not the regular service part and had to be replaced only on account of the accident. As the invoice parts were to be procured from the manufacturing unit, transit intra state was involved and hence the parts could reach only in the next consignment to the opposite party No.1. This is a standard procedure. As soon as the parts were received repair works on the complainant’s vehicle was expedited and subsequently kept completely ready. The vehicle was repaired and waiting for delivery since 22/12/2008 and same was informed to the complainant over phone and subsequently mail was dispatched to the complainant on 27/12/2008. The vehicle was received by the opposite party from Ananthpur on 23/10/2008 and the same was ready for delivery after necessary repairs by 22/12/2008 that means within two months, the vehicle was made by the opposite party to be delivered to the complainant. So, under the facts and circumstances of the case, taking two months time by the opposite party to repair the vehicle after securing the spare parts from the manufacturing company which is situated in Maharashtra cannot be considered as inordinate delay on the part of the opposite parties to repair and get the vehicle ready for delivery. It is the case of the opposite party that delay if any repairing the vehicle was on account of the complainant not giving written consent and longer duration taken for transport of spare parts from manufacturing unit. It is the case of the opposite party that they have not given any false information to the complainant. They have submitted that they have looked into the customer satisfaction and there were no reason to give false information to the customer. It is not the case of the complainant that vehicle is having manufacturing defect. Therefore, he is entitled for replacement of the vehicle or cost of the vehicle. His entire grievance is on delay aspect. As stated above delay of two months to get the vehicle ready for delivery after repairs cannot be considered deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. There may be so many reasons for the delay and for that the complainant has also contributed for the delay. So under these circumstances, when the vehicle was ready and invoice was raised on 22/12/2008 and the same was conveyed to the complainant. It is the duty of the complainant to receive the vehicle by visiting the opposite party. The complainant has approached this Forum claiming exaggerated amount of compensation without their being any legal basis. The complainant shall have to take the delivery of the vehicle since the vehicle is ready after repairs. So under these circumstances, the complaint is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. The learned Advocate for the opposite party submitted that insurance company is also ready to allow the claim and therefore, it is for the complainant and the opposite party to take up the matter with the insurance company to settle the accidental claim. As regards the claim against the insurance company it is outside the scope of this complaint. Therefore, no specific order or direction is required in that respect. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances and the documents there is no merit in the complaint and it deserves to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER <br /> rhr.,