KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NOS. 340/09 & 644/09
COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 27.7.10
PRESENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
APPEAL NO.34O/09
The Managing Director,
M/s.Tata Motors8th Floor, Centre No.1,
World Trade Centre, Cubbe Parade, -- APPELLANT
Mumbai-5.
(By Adv.M/s.Menon & Menon)
Vs.
1. T.Prakasan,
Thayyil house,
Talap, Kannur.
2. The Managing Director, -- RESPONDENTS
Koyenco Auto Pvt.Ltd.,
Head Quarters, Hospital Road,
Kannur-1.
(R1 BY Adv.Rakesh Sukumaran .K. & Ors.)
APPEAL NO.644/09
The Managing Director, -- APPELLANT
Koyenco Auto Private Ltd.,
Head Quarters Hospital Road,
Kannur-1.
(By Adv.M/s.Menon & Menon)
Vs.
1. T.Prakasan,
Thayyil house, -- RESPONDENTS
Talap, Kannur.
2. The Managing Director,
M/s.Tata Motors 8th Floor, Centre No.1,
World Trade Centre,
Cubbe Parade, Mumbai-5.
(R1 BY Adv.Rakesh Sukumaran .K. & Ors.)
COMMON JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
The above appeals are preferred from the order dated 18th May 2009 passed by CDRF, Kannur in CC.No.67/06. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in causing delay for delivering the vehicle after effecting the repairs. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that they were very prompt in attending the repair work, but unfortunately the damaged part namely headlight assembly was not available with the dealer and so they had to get it from the manufacturer at Mumbai. It is the further case of the first opposite party/dealer that the headlight assembly they got it from the manufacturer was found defective and so they had to wait for some more time. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the service Manager of the first opposite party/dealer was examined as DW1. Exts. A1 to A5 and B1 to B3 documents were also marked on the side of the opposite parties to the said complaint. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby directed the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant with future interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of the impugned order. The complaint was also allowed cost of Rs.1000/-. It is against the said order, the present Appeal 340/09 is filed by the second opposite party and Appeal 644/09 by the first opposite party/dealer.
3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeals. He also relied on the oral testimony of DW1 and argued for the position that there was no delay in attending the repair work. He also questioned the correctness of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Forum below. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and requested for dismissal of the present appeals.
4. The facts of these appeals are admitted. It is to be noted that the complainant purchased the Tata Indigo Marina Diesel car from the first opposite party on 7.4.05 and that the said vehicle met with an accident and for effecting repairs the said vehicle was entrusted with the first opposite party/dealer and service agent on 13.7.05. Ext.A3 is the job card issued by the first opposite party/service center. As per A3 job card, the estimated delivery date was shown as 18.7.05. It would give an indication that the first opposite party had given an assurance to deliver the vehicle after repairs within 5 days. Admittedly, the complainant could take delivery of the vehicle only after 47days. In other words, the first opposite party/service center took 47 days to effect the repairs. This circumstance would give an indication that there was deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party/dealer in effecting necessary repairs to the vehicle.
5. The first opposite party/dealer would contend that the delay occurred because of non-availability of headlamp assembly with the dealer. It may be correct to say that headlamp assembly was not available with the first opposite party/service center. But, there is nothing on record other than the interested testimony of DW1 to show that the first opposite party placed order for headlamp assembly immediately on getting the vehicle on 13.7.05. It is to be noted that the headlamp assembly was sent to the first opposite party/dealer from the second opposite party/manufacturer at Mumbai. It is too much to say that 20 days time was taken to get the headlamp assembly from Mumbai. There is also nothing on record to show as to how and when the 1st opposite party obtained headlamp assembly from the manufacturer at Mumbai. There is only the interested testimony of DW1, the Service Manager of the first opposite party (Branch Manager). The first opposite party has also got a case that they received the headlamp assembly after 20 days and the said unit was also found defective and thereby the first opposite party had to wait for another 20 days. But there is no reliable evidence to substantiate the case of the first opposite party that the headlamp assembly which they received after 20 days was also found defective. It is also to be noted at this juncture that the second opposite party/manufacturer was negligent in sending a defective headlamp assembly. Had there been vigilance and diligence on the part of the second opposite party in forwarding the spare part items there would not have any such delay in getting headlamp assembly.
6. DW1 in his testimony has stated that the first opposite party obtained the headlamp assembly not in accordance with the specification which the first opposite party had given to the second opposite party/manufacturer. This circumstance would make it more clear that the second opposite party was negligent in forwarding the headlamp assembly to the first opposite party. Thus, it can be concluded that both the opposite parties were deficient in rendering prompt services to the complainant/consumer. The Forum below is perfectly justified in finding the opposite parties deficient in rendering services to the complainant in effecting repairs to his damaged vehicle.
7. The complainant/consumer has claimed Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation. The complainant as PW1 has also deposed about the inconveniences and discomforts suffered by him due to non-availability of the vehicle for 47 days. Considering the evidence available on record, the Forum below awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/-. A careful scrutiny of the entire facts, circumstances and evidence on record would give an indication that compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Forum below is on the higher side. It is true, that there will be an element of guess work in awarding compensation for deficiency of this nature. This Commission is of the view that compensation of Rs.10,000/- is sufficient to meet the ends of Justice. So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below awarding compensation of Rs.15,000/- is modified and the compensation is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. The cost of Rs.1000/- ordered by the Forum below is reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Forum below has also awarded future interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of receipt of the impugned order. We are pleased to modify the said order regarding payment of interest and thereby future interest is awarded at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this common Judgment.
In the result, these 2 appeals are disposed of accordingly. The impugned order dated, 18.5.09 passed by CDRF, Kannur in CC.No.67/06 is modified. Thereby the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Forum below is reduced to Rs.10,000/- with a cost of Rs.1000/-. The appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay future interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this Judgment. In all other aspects the impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeals are concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
s/L
