Date of Filling      :  23.09.2016.

                                                                                           Date of Disposal  :  12.05.2017.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                     TMT.  S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                          …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint No.39/2016

(Dated this Friday the 12^th day of May 2017)

P. Sathish Kumar,

S/o. Mr. C. Pushparaj,

No.175, Chinnamman Koil Street,

Jeeva Nagar,

Avadi,

Chennai - 600 054.                                                                      … Complainant.

/ Versus /

1.  The Service Manager,

     SVM MOTORS PVT. LTD. (Branch Office),

     No.58, Nehru Bazzar Road,

     Avadi,

     Chennai - 600 054.

2.  The Proprietor,

     SVM MOTORS PVT. LTD. (Head Office),

     No.65, Medavakkam Tank Road,

     Kilpauk,

     Chennai - 600 010.                                                           … Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 24.04.2017 in the presence of the complainant and M/s. N. Murugesan, Counsel for the opposite parties and having perused the documents and evidences and written  arguments on the side of both sides this Forum delivered the following,

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental agony due to the misrepresentation of the opposite parties and deficiency of service.

2.       The brief averments of the complaint is as follows:-

The complainant serviced his Honda Activa scooter in the 1^st opposite party’s place on 01.07.2016 and thereby, he was totally dissatisfied with the billing.  Immediately, the complainant complained to the Honda Customer care that  in the bill the opposite party has mentioned as ETZ4 but they have actually fixed only ATZ4L type of battery which costs only of Rs.985/-.  While enquiring about the misrepresentation of the battery type, the 1^st opposite party had explained that it is a small selection error.  If this is a small selection error, the MRP of ETZ4 should be mentioned as Rs.1,147/- only.  It is mentioned as MRP Rs.1,234/- in the bill even after deducting 5% discount.  It is more than MRP price.  When the battery and spark plug are being new one, the electrical check-up is unnecessary.   Eventhen, the opposite party performed electrical check-up.  In the first attempt itself, they have not checked this, ‘rat bitten wires’ in the initial stage itself or in the second time i.e. on 13.07.2016.  The above act of the opposite party is a deliberate one and it clearly amounts for deficiency of service which caused mental agony.  Hence, this complaint.

3.       The contention of written version of the opposite party is  briefly as follows:-

The opposite parties denied all the allegations made in the complaint except those are specifically admitted herein.  It is true that the complainant had visited the service center of the 1^st opposite party on 01.07.2016 with his Honda active scooter having Registration No.TN 12 A 0460.  On that day, the said vehicle was in pushing condition.  The opposite party received the vehicle and prepared the Job card no.13141 and given estimation for Rs.4,000/- to the complainant.

4.       At the time of service, the opposite parties’ staff mechanic found the rat bitten wiring kit and few parts were need to be changed and informed the same to the complainant and the opposite party asked the complainant that for approval to replace parts & wiring kit.  The complainant requested the opposite party for minimize the repair cost of wiring kit and he said to the opposite party that no need of replace the few parts, he wanted it to be replaced the same in future service.  As per the request of the complainant, the opposite party done the work and informed the complainant to take delivery by paying Rs.4,780/- including Annual Maintenance Cost (AMC) and the complainant paid the same and took his vehicle from the service center of the opposite parties.

5.       Then the complainant raised allegation on 13.07.2016, that the opposite parties claimed and got overcharge more than actual charge and the opposite parties conduct; Regarding issue, the opposite party was requested to visit  and sort out the problem.  Later, the complainant said that the vehicle is not starting again, the opposite party sent their mechanic on 15.07.2016 (Job card no.13543) to the complainant’s home and brought the vehicle to service center of the opposite parties and searched the vehicle and they found the wiring kit damaged by rat again. The same was informed to the complainant and attended the fault by the request of the complainant.  After the service, the vehicle delivered to the complainant with good condition.

6.       Regarding, the difference in price of the battery, the opposite parties found there is mistaken in billing of battery price and they are ready to pay the difference price.  But the complainant do no want to continue the AMC with the opposite parties service centre, refunded the excess price of the battery and AMC cost including vat tax and service tax that is Rs.1,100/- on 04.07.2016, invoice no.16 IW 02421.

7.       Again the complainant has given the complaint to Honda on 23.07.2016 for starting problem.  As per the complainant’s complaint, the opposite parties brought the vehicle on 25.07.2016, (job card no.13911) and found the rat bitten wiring kit and the mechanic of opposite parties attended the said fault and delivered the vehicle to the complainant on the same day.  That more than 2 times, the opposite parties attended the fault of vehicle without any claim of service charge.  Hence there is no negligence, no cheating and no deficiency of service in their service.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

8.       In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked.  While so, on the side of the opposite parties, the proof affidavit is filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5  were marked on his side.

9.       At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

10.     Written arguments filed on both sides and regarding oral arguments, the complained filed a Memo to treat his written arguments as oral arguments and the opposite party reported “No oral arguments”.

11.     Point no.1:-

On perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side and the evidence adduced on both sides, it is learnt that the complainant had produced his vehicle bearing Reg. no.TN 12 A 0460 for the complaint of starting problem to the 1^st opposite party on 01.07.2016 and inturn the 1^st opposite party received the same and prepared Job card no.13141 with estimation cost of Rs.4,000/- and the said Job Card is marked as Ex.B1.  In Ex.B1, the complainant’s request as well as the actual work details and specifications of labour works have been clearly mentioned.  On completion of repairs as per the request of the complainant, the said vehicle was taken delivery by the complainant on payment of Rs.4,780/- including annual Maintenance Cost (AMC).  The invoice for the same is marked as Ex.A1 & Ex.B2 which are one and the same.  It is seen from the invoice, Ex.A1 and the job card, Ex.B1, AMCO (ETZ4) battery has been replaced for the cost of Rs.1,234.20.  Subsequently on 13.07.2016, the complainant had complained that the opposite parties claimed over charge more than actual charge of the alleged battery and to that effect, the complainant had produced the actual price of the battery is marked as Ex.A2.  Immediately, the opposite party realized their mistake and  explained that there is only mistake in billing of the battery price and they are ready to pay the difference price. 

12.     It is further learnt that on the same day, the complainant did not want to continue the AMC with the service center of the opposite parties.  The letter for the same is marked as Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 is the letter of confirmation of the complainant to the 1^st opposite party dated:20.07.2016 for the receipt of refund.   Therefore, the opposite party had refunded the excess price of the battery, AMC charges of Rs.750/-, 50% of the electrical check up of Rs.292.50 and the cost of kicker overhauling is for the sum of Rs.90/- including vat tax and service tax in total of Rs.1,100/- has been refunded to the complainant.   In this regard  Ex.A3, the cash / cheque voucher is marked and the same is marked as Ex.B5 on the side of the opposite party.

13.     All the above facts are admitted one.  Similarly, it is an admitted fact that the complainant again visited the opposite party’s service center and complained that his vehicle is having starting problem and immediately the opposite party sent the mechanic on 15.07.2016 as per (Job Card no.13543) and brought the vehicle to the service center and attended the fault as per the request of the complainant and delivered the vehicle in good condition and also on 23.07.2016 and the complainant given the complaint that the vehicle is not starting again and in turn, the opposite party brought the vehicle on 25.07.2016 and in turn the 1^st opposite party issued job card no.13911 and found that the rat bitten wiring kit  and the same has been attended by their mechanic and delivered the vehicle without any claim or service charges.  These facts are also not at all disputed by the complainant.

14.     At this juncture, the allegations of the complainant is that the misrepresentation of the battery type is a deliberate one and thereby, cheated the complainant and rat bitten electrical wire was repaired only on the 3^rd attempt instead of repairing even in the first attempt and the opposite party has refunded only 50% of the  Electrical check-up charges and hence the complainant incurred mental agony.  Regarding these allegations, on careful perusal of the averments of the written version as well as the evidences, it is stated by the opposite party that at the first time, the staff of the opposite party found the rat bitten wiring kit and few parts were need to be changed and informed the same to the complainant and the complainant requested the opposite party to minimize the repair cost of wiring kit and no need to replace the few parts in future service and hence as per the request of the complainant only the opposite parties done the work.  Such being so, on seeing Ex.B1, it is clear that there is no new part or wiring kit have been replaced.  But at the same time, wiring kit has been attended to some extent without replacing a new one.  At this instance, the complainant stated in the evidence that he has not informed the opposite party to revise the bill amount. 

15.     At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that when the vehicle was again brought to the service centre of the 1^st opposite party for the complaint of starting problem, it is informed to the complainant again about the damage of wiring kit by rat and also for the same problem the said vehicle was brought  to the opposite parties service centre on 25.07.2016  for the same problem and it was fully attended by the opposite party and claimed no service charge.  So, it can be  easily presumed that the opposite parties have informed about the rat bitten wiring kit even on the first instance and only because of the request of the complainant and the alleged wiring kit has not been replaced with a new one. Even after withdrawn of the AMC charges of Rs.750/- by the complainant, the opposite parties have attended the fault without charging  which itself reveals the fair and genuineness of the service of the opposite parties.

16.     At this instance, this Forum wants to enlighten that if anybody has committed any fault while they are discharging their service and the same was brought to the knowledge of the opposite party, if the opposite party has refused to rectify the defect or the fault, then only, it will come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  As far as the case on hand is concerned, immediately when the complainant has brought to the knowledge of the opposite party about the cost price of the battery as well as the other complaints the opposite party immediately have come forward to rectify the defects and refunded all the amounts and also attended the faults without cost for more than 2 times.  Therefore, it is crystal clear that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Furthermore, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service and negligence if any, on the side of the opposite parties by means of relevant and consistent evidence.  Therefore, this complaint is filed by the complainant only to enrich himself. Thus, the point no.1 is answered accordingly.

15.     Point no.2:-

As per the conclusion arrived in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint and answered this point accordingly.   

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed.    No cost.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 12^th May 2017.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT