Date of Filing : 19.11.2013
Date of Order : 28.03.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.352/2013
MONDAY THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2016
Dr. Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai,
Communication Address
B-1/1, N.P.Nagar, A.g.Khan Road,
Worli, Mumbai 400 018.
Local Address:
F9, Saikrupa Apts.
35 Taramani Link Road,
Velachery, Chennai 600 042. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. The Regional Manager,
DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited,
136, Velachery Main Road,
Little Mount, Saidapet,
Chennai 600 016.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited,
No.3, Victoria Road,
Bangalore 560 047. ..Opposite parties.
For the Complainant : Party in person.
For the Opposite parties : M/s. S.Natarajan.
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.30,000/- for repair charges and compensation and also cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN :: MEMBER-II
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:
The complainant submit that he was using the car No. TN-07-A-0819 on the authorization of the car owner to use and maintained the said car since the owner of the car was out of station. Further the complainant stated that the he found that the said car requires some mechanical repair and approached the Maruthi Authorized Dealer, Akshaya Motors (Private Garage) and upon inspection the opposite party had given an estimate of repair Rs.32,050/- and finally promised to carry out the work for Rs.30,000/- and received the advance of Rs.20,000/- by way of cheque in the name of M/s. Akshaya Motors which was realized from the bank. The complainant though the opposite party had given an estimate of Rs.32,050/- and finally on negotiation came to the conclusion of Rs.20,375/- and based on this received an advance of Rs.20,000/-. Again he took cash of about 2000 for wiper, petrol and some parts purchased and delivered the car without doing the agreed works and defective repair of radiator and petrol tank. He missed colour Xerox copy of the registration book kept in the car for RTO inspection which can be misused. The opposite party delivered the car without doing the required works and defective works. Several demands made by the complainant the opposite party did not do so. As such the act of the opposite party amount to deficiency of service which caused mental and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant has sought for refund a sum of Rs.8,000/- assess by him as excess and Rs.22,000/- for repair and compensation of Rs.30,000/- to be ordered on the opposite party. The complainant states that he had kept colour xerox copy of the RC and radiator fluid concentrate two bottles and break oil worth of Rs.1000/- to be returned back. Hence the complaint.
Written version opposite party is as follows:
2. The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. It is true that the complainant contacted the opposite party through just dial. Only after ascertaining the very details of repair works to be done their complete cost, the complainant made payment. While handing over the car or repairs the complainant verified that it was empty and nothing was kept inside, hence the blatant allegation that Xerox copies RC paper with liquids were kept in the car are wholly false and baseless, complainant is put to very strict proof of the same. The complainant lodged a police complaint without any basis after taking delivery and this opposite party was forced to give an undertaking under duress and coercion at the police station on 24.8.2013 which is now made use of. The opposite party submit that the complainant took delivery without any complaint and he has not committed any deficiency of service. The opposite party is not responsible in any manner to the various allegation made in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite party filed and no document were marked on the side of the opposite party.
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
5. POINTS 1 & 2 :
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. Written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite party and no document was marked on the side of the opposite party and also considered the both side arguments.
6. The complainant was using the car No.TN-07-A-0819 on the authorization of the car owner to use and maintained the said car since the owner of the car was out of station (Ex.A1). It is stated that the complainant found that the said car requires some mechanical repair and approached the Maruthi Authorized Dealer Akshaya Motors (Private Garage) and upon inspection the opposite party had given an estimate of repair Rs.32,050/- and finally promised to carry out the work for Rs.30,000/- and received the advance of Rs.20,000/- by way of cheque in the name of M/s. Akshaya Motors which was realized from the bank. The complainant though the opposite party had given an estimate of Rs.32,050/- and finally on negotiation came to the conclusion of Rs.20,375/- and based on this received an advance of Rs.20,000/-. The job card Ex.A3 dated 31.5.2013 proof this fact. The job card shows that the complainant left battery 2011 model, one spare wheel and three mud Flaps and one Stereo set. The job card shows the signature on satisfactory conclusion of job and delivery was made on 24.8.2013 at 6.15 p.m. The complainant states that the content given the job card for painting Rs.8,000/- and tinkering Rs.5,000/- which was contradictory to that the rate mentioned in the job card agreed upon. The complainant made allegations on the opposite party that he had demanded more than what was mutually agreed upon for labour and mechanical work and it is not proper on the opposite party to demand more for the works agreed and not rectified the petrol tank, radiator and Wiper and make the car roadworthy and demanding refund of excess paid and the complainant assess the actual loss would be only Rs.13,000/- and demanding refund of excess amount which was against the mutual consent. The complainant made a prayer to this forum to refund Rs.8,000/- assessed by him as excess and Rs.22,000/- for repair and compensation of Rs.30,000/- to be ordered on the opposite party. The complainant states that he had kept colour xerox copy of the RC and radiator fluid concentrate two bottles and break oil worth of Rs.1000/- to be returned back.
7. The complainant states that it is deficiency of service of not repairing properly having received the consideration of Rs.20,000/- by way of cheque and Rs.2,000/- by way of cash for the defective workman ship.
8. The opposite party had not disputed the amount received from the complainant to rectify their repair demanded by the complainant. The opposite party has not agreed the averments cited in his complaint and states that the complainant was not working about the black and white proof of service deficiency failure to repair work recorded on the job card which indicates refundable charges of works which were not carried out. The opposite party contended that the allegations made against the opposite party by the complainant are baseless and the complainant is put to very strict proof of the same. The opposite party further states that the complainant lodged a police complaint without any basis after taking delivery and opposite party was to give an undertaking under duress and coercion in police station on 24.8.2013 which is an harassment made by the complainant for no fault of the opposite party. The opposite party further contended that the complainant will not come under the purview of consumer and prays to dismiss the complaint and render justice.
9. In pursuant of the complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents filed in this forum and the written arguments and the proof affidavit of the opposite party indicates the following observation.
10. On thorough study made in this complaint it is proved that the complainant had left the vehicle with the opposite party on 31.5.2013 and took delivery of the vehicle on 24.8.2013 without any protest making the allegations of any unattended work.
11. The job card clearly proves that the complainant left one spare wheel, three mud guard flaps, one stereo set, 2011 battery-1 other than that nothing was kept in the vehicle what was demanded by the complainant in his complaint.
12. The complainant stating that colour Xerox of RC book and other materials that was alleged to be kept in the vehicle to be returned to the complainant.
13. Though the complainant had paid Rs.22,000/- (Rs.20,000 by way of cheque and Rs.2,000/- by way of cash (for wiper, petrol, and some parts purchase). When the complaint took delivery of the vehicle he should have demanded the receipt, on completion on the job entrusted and he should have highlighted the unattended jobs to the repairer and as a proof he should have taken the vehicle to other repairer and should have got an estimate to prove the non attendance of work which was agreed upon has furnished in the job card. To prove this non attendance of work executed by the opposite party the complainant failed to submit the documentary evidence to this forum to claim the refund from the opposite party and there is no evidence that he had left the documents in the vehicle to substantiate his claim.
14. On 24.8.2013 the opposite party had given a consent that he does not have any document under his custody and if there is any compliant in future in this regard which comes to light he will take responsibility and endorsed. This shows a proof that there is no document kept in the custody of the opposite party.
15. The contention of the opposite party stating that he is not a consumer could not be accepted because the complainant had got due approval from the owner of the vehicle and moreover the contractual liability is between the complainant and the repairer which holds good, that he will come under the COPRA 1986. Having found on the merits of the complaint there is no proof of evidence to substantiate the claim preferred by the complainant, the complaint stands dismissed with no cost.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 28th day of March 2016.
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents :
Ex.A1- 25.5.2013 - Copy of Authorization to use and Maintain car.
Ex.A2- 23.8.2013 - Copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party with
Ack. card.
Ex.A3- 31.5.2013 - Copy of Job card.
Ex.A4- 7.11.2013 - Copy of letter from the complainant to the Indian Bank.
Opposite party’s side documents:
.. Nil ..
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
