DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 22nd day of December 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 12/04/2012
(C.C.No.164/2012)
Lakshminarayanan,
S/o.Venugopalamenon,
Pallipadam Veedu,
Thathamangalam,
Chittur Taluk, Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.T.V.Praveenkumar)
V/s
Sreekumar,
Proprietor,
Aditya Auto Sales,
Yakkara Post,
Palakkad – 678 014. - Opposite party
(By Adv.P.R.Hariharan)
O R D E R
By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief :
Complainant in this complaint is the owner of KL-09-H-7466 Hero Honda Motorcycle. Opposite party is the authorized sales & service agent of Hero Honda. On 14/9/2011 the complainant entrusted his motorcycle with the opposite party for repair work and opposite party had given an estimate for the same. As per the instruction of the staff, complainant approached the opposite party after 20 days i.e. on 5/10/11 for taking delivery of the vehicle. The opposite party told him that they will inform him over phone within 2 days after completing the repair work. After that the complainant went to the opposite party office several times for taking delivery of the vehicle, but not delivered the vehicle to him and the staff behaved in rude manner. Due to non delivery of the vehicle in time the complainant had to depend taxi / auto for his day to day business needs and lost more than Rs.10,000/-. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, cost and such any other relief as the Forum may deemed fit.
Opposite party admitted that the complainant has given his motorcycle for repair on 14/9/2011. Opposite party denied that the complainant approached them on 5/10/2011 and after that several times to the opposite party for getting back his vehicle and that he was sent back without the vehicle.
Complainant’s motorcycle is model known as CBZ and the manufacturer has stopped production of the said model. The complainant was informed at the time entrusting the vehicle that the repairs could be undertaken subject to the availability of spares. The complainant also wanted complete repair / overhaul including painting and a rough estimate regarding cost was given, no undertaking was made that the vehicle would be fully repaired and returned within 20 days as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party had to get majority of the spare parts from the OEM at Delhi, the delay caused was because of the delay in getting the specific spare parts from the OEM. As regards painting of the vehicle it was unfortunate that the painter fell ill and could complete the job only after his recovery. The actual state of affairs were informed to the complainant vide letter dated 13/7/2012. The opposite party has not willfully done any act to cause inconvenience the complainant on the contrary the opposite party has repaired the motorcycle of the complainant, made as good as new and was fit for taking delivery on 2/7/2012. No deficiency of service has been rendered by the opposite party as alleged in the complaint. The complainant is not entitled for any of the relief claimed. Hence complaint is to be dismissed.
Complainant and opposite party filed their respective chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B5 marked on the side of opposite party.
Issues for consideration are
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ?
Issue No.1
Entrustment of the motorcycle with the opposite party for servicing on 14/9/2011 is admitted. According to the complainant till date vehicle has not been delivered after servicing. Opposite party has contented that vehicle was fit for delivery on 2/7/2012 itself. So admittedly there is delay of 10 months. Now the question to be looked into is whether the delay is reasonable and whether the explanation given by the opposite party can be taken into account.
It is true that the vehicle was delivered for full servicing and it will take a reasonable time. The reason for the delay as submitted by the opposite party that delay in receipt of spare parts is not supported by any documentary evidence. Further reason that the painter fell ill is also not supported by any evidence. Even if that be so, it is the duty of opposite party to do the painting work with some other painter.
The reasonable period for full servicing at no cost can extend beyond a period of one month. Hence we find that there is inordinate delay in delivery of the vehicle after servicing for which complainant has to be adequately compensated.
Issue No.2
Complainant has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, which we find is on a higher side. Complainant is a person who is using a two wheeler. Definitely complainant will have suffered monitory loss as he has to hire other vehicles for his day to day affairs. Moreover inordinate delay in delivery of the vehicle would have caused mental agony to the complainant. We are of the view that an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation will meet the ends of justice.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to return the vehicle after full service to the complainant on payment of the charges. Opposite party is also directed to pay complainant Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of December 2012.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Job Card No.1525 dtd. 14/9/11
Ext.A2 – Copy of lawyer notice sent by complainant’s advocate to opposite
party dated 5/7/12 alongwith postal receipt and acknolwedgement
card.
Ext.A3 – Letter dated 13/7/12 sent by opposite party works manager to the
complainant.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – Job Card No.1525 dtd.14/9/11 issued by opposite party
Ext.B2 – Additional Job card No.459 issued by opposite party.
Ext.B3 – Additional Job card No.837 issued by opposite party.
Ext.B4 – Photocopy of the letter dated 13/7/12 sent by opposite party’s work
Manager to the complainant
Ext.B5 – Cash bill (8 nos) issued by opposite party to the complainant
dtd.5/11/12
Cost
Rs.1000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
