By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite party to give the vehicle owned by the Complainant to any other Hundai Authorised work shop for repair at the cost of Opposite Party and also direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant used to service his vehicle KL 11Z 2080 Hundai Car 2007 Model with the service centre of Opposite Party from 26.05.2015. On 17.06.2015, the Complainant noticed too much smoke from the car and the Complainant's brother entrusted the car in the service centre of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party informed the Complainant that there is complaint in the Turbo and Engine of the Car and the Turbo is to be replaced and engine is to be repaired. At that time, the vehicle was run by 113000 kms. The Opposite Party offered another 50000 kms run smoothly by conducting the above works. The Opposite Party also promised to complete the work within 10.07.2015. The Complainant entrusted vehicle to the Opposite Party for the work and towards the expenses the Complainant gave Rs.35,000/- on 01.07.2015, Rs.20,000/- on 10.07.2015. The Opposite Party promised to complete the work for Rs.80,969/- and accepted Rs.55,000/- as advance and Rs.3,969/- as reduction. The Complainant also gave Rs.12,000/- to the Opposite Party. The balance is Rs.10,000/- and the Opposite Party gave one month time to pay the same. The vehicle was delivered to the Complainant. On 18.07.2015, when the Complainant was in journey to Kozhikde, the axil of the vehicle was broken at Koduvally and the vehicle was taken to Maruthi Clinic. The Complainant spend Rs.10,800/- for the repair of the axil of the vehicle and intermediate shaft. After a few days, there was Engine oil leak and diesel leak in the vehicle and the turbo was not working. The vehicle was then taken to Opposite Party's Work shop on 20.08.2016. The vehicle was delivered on 22.08.2015 stating that the defects are cured and the Opposite Party accepted the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-. Again the car showed starting problem repeatedly and the Opposite Party delivered the car as per the direction of Circle Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery on payment of Rs.5,530/-. Now, the complainant is hiring vehicle for his daily use and the Complainant sustained hardships and losses due to deficiency in servicing of the vehicle properly. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and the Opposite Party appeared before the forum and filed version. In the version, the Opposite Party denied the statement of the Complainant that the vehicle is being serviced at the work shop of the opposite Party from 26.05.2015. The Opposite party never promised the Complainant that the vehicle will have no problem for the next 50000 kms after servicing the vehicle at opposite party. The vehicle was already run by 113000 kms as on 17.06.2015. There is no oral agreement between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party informed the brother of the Complainant that the repair work will take one month at least to complete. Due to the compulsion of the brother of the Complainant, the opposite party delivered the vehicle on 18.07.2015. The repair works as suggested by the Opposite Party was not completed over the vehicle. All other allegations are denied by the opposite party. On 2013 itself, the ECM of vehicle was in complaint, the vehicle was shown to the Apco Hundai service Centre, Kozhikode. The Complainant repaired the vehicle at local technicians on several occasions. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for considerations.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A14. Commission report is marked as Ext.C1 and called for documents are marked as Ext.X1 series. The Opposite Parties also filed affidavit and the Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the Circle Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery on getting a complaint from Complainant against Opposite Party. Ext.A2 is the estimate of repair dated 13.07.2015 Ext.A3 are also an estimates dated 26.05.2015. Ext.A4 is an estimate dated 30.05.2015. Ext.A5 is an estimate dated 05.06.2015, Ext.A6 estimate dated 01.07.2015, Ext.A7 is an estimate dated 12.07.2015, Ext.A8 is the Bill, Ext.A9 estimate dated 01.09.2015, Ext.A10, Ext.A11 are the bills, Ext.A12 is the bill dated 05.07.2015, Ext.A13 is the Quotation dated 09.07.2015. Ext.A14 is the petition receipt issued by Circle Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery. Ext.C1 is the Commission Report filed by the Expert Commissioner on inspecting the vehicle. The Ext.X1 documents are the service records called from Apco Vehicles (India) Pvt Ltd., Kozhikode. As per Ext.X1 documents, it is seen that the vehicle is given for service to Apco vehicles Kozhikode and repair works are done in the year 2007 and 20015. In the Commission Report ie Ext.C1, the Commission Reported that Turbo Charger, as a precision assembly working at Very high rpm, temperature and pressure, failure in servicing it cannot be ruled out as improper workmanship of the agency also. The case of Complainant is that the Complainant entrusted the vehicle with Opposite Party for service due to Complaint in turbo and Engine of the car. The turbo is to be replaced and engine is to be repaired. The Opposite Party promised to do the work for Rs.80,936/-. The Complainant paid almost all the amount and the Opposite Party had done the repair work and delivered the vehicle. But according to the Complainant, again there was problem and the work done by the Opposite Party is insufficient. But as per records, the Forum found that during the pendency of case and after the inspection of commissioner, the Opposite Party had replaced the turbo assembly and now there is no complaints in the vehicle. The Complainant also admitted it. Now the issue is with respect to the compensation aspect only. As per commissioner report, there is improper workmanship of the agency caused problems in the vehicle. The explanation given by the Opposite Party is that the Complainant's brother demanded the vehicle before completing the works properly and the Complainant's brother compelled the opposite party to deliver the vehicle. Such a contention of Opposite Party cannot be believed at all. Because no agency will deliver the vehicle before the completion of work. If the Opposite Party delivered the vehicle before completion of work, it is a clear case irresponsibility from the side of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party should not have delivered the vehicle before completion of work under any circumstances. The Complainant had suffered much hardships due to the complaints in the vehicle. Since the vehicle is of 2007 model and had undergone many repair works earlier before the purchase of vehicle by the Complainant and more over, the vehicle had run for more than 137000 kms, the Forum limits the compensation amount to a nominal one. The Forum found deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party. Point No.1 found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the Complaint is partly allowed, The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Opposite Party shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 4th day of November 2016.
Date of Filing:16.09.2015.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Hareesh. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Hareesh. Mechanic, New Indian Bosch Car Service,
Sulthan Bathery.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Receipt. dt:27.08.2015.
A2 Series (3 Nos) Estimate.
A3. Estimate dt:26.05.2015.
A4 series (2 Nos) Estimate. dt:30.05.2015.
A5. Estimate. dt:05.06.2015.
A6. Estimate. dt:01.07.2015.
A7. Estimate. dt:12.07.2015.
A8. Retail Invoice. dt:31.08.2015.
A9. Estimate.
A10. Tax Invoice. dt:02.07.2015.
A11. Tax Invoice. dt:04.07.2015.
A12. Quotation. dt:02.07.2015.
A13. Quotation. dt:09.07.2015.
A14. Receipt. dt:14.09.2015.
C1. Commission Report. dt:13.01.2016.
Exhibits for the opposite Party:
X1 series (41 Nos) Copy of Invoice.
