Date of Filing :   16.10.2012

                                                                        Date of Order :   20.04.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.259/2012

WEDNESDAY THIS  20^TH  DAY OF APRIL 2016

Mr. R. Pawan Kumar,

No.13-B, 5^th Main Road,

Dandeeswaram,

Velacherry,

Chennai 600 042.                                       ..Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

1.  The Managing Director,

Tafe Reach Limited,

No.43, (Old No.17),

Greams Road,

Chennai 600 006.

2.  Tata Motors Limited,

One Indiabulls Centre,

Tower 2A & B 20^th Floor,

841, Senapati Bapat Marg,

Jupiter Mills compound,

Elphinstone Road (West),

Mumbai 400 013.                                     ..Opposite parties   

For the Complainant               :  M/s. P. Vinodhkumar & another   

For the opposite party-1          :  M/s. D. Jawahar

For the opposite party-2          :  M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh.   

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The  complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to redeliver the car with running condition after rectifying the said repairs and also to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards the amount spent by him for hiring the car for his business purpose and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as damages for mental agony and compensation and cost of the complaint.     

ORDER

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

        The complainant submit that he is the owner of the Indica-Vista diesel motor car 2008 model bearing chasis No.611421JRZPB5425 and Registration No.TN 07  BB 6878.  The said car was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  Due to complaint of check engine light glowing  and check heater light glowing the said vehicle was handed over by the complainant to the 1^st  opposite party on 16.08.2012 and they will deliver the vehicle to the complainant on 17.08.2012 at 6.00 p.m. after rectifying the said repairs.  On 17.8.2012 the complainant reached the above said service centre of the 1^st opposite party to take back the vehicle and offered to pay the service charges.   The staff of the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the heater plug could not be opened and asked him to wait for few days to complete the repairs.  Further the complainant submit that the staff of the 1^st opposite party had informed the complainant that the 1^st opposite party had taken the vehicle outside their premises to a lathe company and forcefully opened the vehicle which resulted damage of fuel rail which causes heavy damages to the vehicle.  Due to the negligent and inexperience act of the 1^st opposite party. He further informed the complainant that it may cost about Rs.17,000/- to repair the same.  The complainant further submit that he has spent more than Rs.60,000/- (Rs.2000/ per day x 30 days) for car rental due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties.    Inspite of several demands made by the complainant and there was no proper reply from the 1^st opposite party.   Accordingly the complainant issued legal notice dated 20.9.2012 through his lawyer calling upon the opposite parties to return back the vehicle after rectification besides compensation.   After receipt of legal notice the opposite parties neither replied nor complied the demands made in the legal notice.     As such the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   As such the complainant has sought for claiming to redeliver the car with running condition after rectifying the said repairs and also to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards the amount spent by him for hiring the car for his business purpose and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as damages for mental agony and compensation and cost of the complaint.     Hence the complaint.   

Written Version of 1st opposite party is in briefly as follows:

2.     The 1^st opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The complainant is not a consumer as the vehicle is used for business purpose.   The vehicle had been given for repair beyond the warranty period, hence the complainant is liable to pay service and other charges  including price of the components.   Demanding service and other charges for the repairs done would not amount to deficiency of service.  It is the duty of the customer to pay service and other charges and take delivery of the vehicle, as the vehicle was repaired beyond warranty period.    The service personnel of the opposite party are well trained and technically qualified persons and to allege that they are negligent and inexperienced are defamatory in nature.   As the problem was a major one it took more time to repair and to blame the opposite party for the same is bad.   Therefore the opposite party is not liable to pay the alleged amount of Rs.60,000/-.  The complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts, as the complainant had failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

Written Version of 2^nd  opposite party is in briefly as follows:

3.    The 2^nd opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The 2^nd opposite party submit that the fuel rail as alleged was forcibly removed by the 1^st opposite party as averred by the complainant,    the 2nd opposite party cannot be held responsible for the alleged acts and omission of the 1^st opposite party and further more it denied that Rs.60,000/- has been spent by the complainant for car rent etc. and that he has suffered severe hardship and mental agony due to the act of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by the opposite parties,  the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.   The 1^st  opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 2^nd  opposite party.    The 2^nd opposite party is unnecessary party to this complaint, as such the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.  

4.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of  Opposite parties  filed and the documents Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked on the side of the  opposite parties.   

5.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

6.     POINTS 1 to 2 : -   

         Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the opposite parties, proof affidavits filed by the complainant and each opposite parties 1 and 2  and the documents Ex.A1 to A7 filed on the side of complainant  and the documents  Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 filed on the side of 1^st opposite party and considered the arguments of the both sides.

7.      There is no dispute that the complaint mentioned vehicle was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party, which was purchased and used by the complainant from September 2008.  Due to complaint of check engine light glowing and check heater light glowing the said vehicle was handed over by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party on 16.08.2012 as per the copy of the job slip Ex.A4   with mentioning estimate delivery date and time i.e. 17.08.2012 at 06.00 p.m.    As on date the warranty for the complaint mentioned vehicle given by the complainant was not in force and it was already expired as the extended period of warranty of two years was expired during the month of September 2011.

8.      The 1^st  opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 2^nd    opposite party, however it has got its own separate identity.  Since on the date of the said vehicle was given to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant for the said repair the warranty for the vehicle was already expired and not in force.  Thus,  for the  complaint mentioned disputes the 2^nd opposite party,  the manufacturer of the vehicle is no more responsible and cannot be considered to be a necessary party as such the 2^nd opposite party’s contention that they are unnecessary party to this complaint, as such the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party  is liable to be dismissed is acceptable.

9.      The grievance raised by the complainant in the complaint is that the complainant has given the vehicle for service to the 1^st  opposite party for repair for which Ex.A4 job slip was issued,  whereas the 1^st opposite party due to their mishandling of the vehicle while attending the said repair the alleged “fuel rail” said to have been damaged and was rectified by them and charged for the said rectification of repair sum of Rs.17,000/- from the complainant to pay which is not proper on their part and the complainant is not liable to pay Rs.17,000/-  to the 1^st  opposite party and complainant claims the delivery of the vehicle with compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- in two different head and also claiming Rs.2000/- per day towards the loss for the complainant towards the non delivery of the vehicle for the period. 

10.      Whereas the 1^st  opposite party have raised objection stating that the vehicle was given to them for repair and it was attended by them in proper way with the skilled staff and as well as available modern equipments and tools maintained in the service station.  The fuel rail of the vehicle found to be damaged and the same was repaired by them as such the claim  of repair charges of Rs.17,000/- the complainant is liable to pay to the 1^st  opposite party.  The complainant   would have taken delivery of the  vehicle after paying the repair charges of Rs.17,000/- without doing so the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and 1^st   opposite party is not liable to pay the claim made by the complainant in the complaint. 

11.      Therefore according to the  complainant,  that the complainant has not specifically disputed that the repair work by the 1^st opposite party was done in the vehicle for the damage of “fuel rail”, but raised dispute that the said damage of “fuel rail” in the vehicle was happened  due to mishandling of the 1^st  opposite party service station while they handling the repair work mentioned in the job slip Ex.A4.  However according to the 1^st opposite party the damage of “fuel rail” found in the vehicle not happened due to mishandling as stated by the complainant but it was in existence at the time of handing over by the complainant itself.  But there is no proof on the side of 1^st opposite party that the said damage of fuel rail in the vehicle was found  when they were attending the  repair work and the same  was intimated to the complainant and necessary  consent was obtained from the complainant with estimation for the repair of the same.   Such are the requirements by the 1^st opposite party as their bounded duty as a service station.  It is also pertinent to mention   that the 1^st  opposite party not even produced the particulars of the said repair work and bill prepared for the necessary charges for the said repair, before this forum, as a document of evidence on  their side.  No valid reason or explanation for the failure of the same on the side of 1^st opposite party.  Therefore,  we are of the considered view that said failure of the 1^st  opposite party in intimating the said  damage of fuel rail of the vehicle found by them in the course of attendance of  repair work  to the complainant and in getting necessary consent from the complainant by explaining the estimation cost and without doing so,  having done the repair of the said damage of fuel rail in the vehicle amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st  opposite party, as such they are not entitled for claiming the said charge from the complainant.  Therefore we are of the considered view that refusal by the complainant to pay  Rs.17,000/- for the repair work said to have been attended by 1^st  opposite party is justifiable and the 1^st  opposite party is also liable to pay just and reasonable  compensation  to that extent only to the complainant.

12.       However,   on the dispute  of the payment of repair charge of above said Rs.17000/- the complainant attitude that, not taking the delivery of the vehicle from the 1^st opposite party and let out the vehicle in the service station of the 1^stopposite party cannot be considered to be a valid and reasonable on the part of complainant.  Even on  the said dispute, the  complainant would have taken the delivery of the vehicle even after the payment of the said repair charge of Rs.17,000/- demanded by the 1^st  opposite party with protest and would have adopted the appropriate legal  remedy.  Without adopting such appropriate steps the complainant being the owner of the vehicle, having left the vehicle with the service station of the 1^st opposite party,  claiming loss at the rate of Rs.2000/- per day against 1^st  opposite party as compensation  is not sustainable.  Thus,    as contended by the  1^st   opposite party they are not liable for such claim made by the complainant is acceptable. 

13.     Therefore we are of the considered view as discussed above and the facts and circumstances of the case that the 1^st  opposite party is not entitled to claim a sum of Rs.17000/- towards  the repair charge said to have been done  i.e “fuel rail” repair in the said vehicle from the complainant as such the 1^st  opposite party is directed to hand over the complaint mentioned vehicle to the complainant without demanding the said  repair charge and also to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as just and reasonable compensation to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation charges.  This complaint against the 2^nd  opposite party is dismissed.  Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.

            In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.  The 1^st  opposite party is directed to deliver the complaint mentioned vehicle to the complainant without demanding the  repair charge towards the repair of damage of “Fuel Rail” in the said vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation, and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-  (Rupees five thousand only) as costs to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order, failing which the said Rs.15,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a.  from the date of this order to till the date of payment. 

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  20^th   day  of  April   2016.

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 20.1.2012  - Copy of R.C. book.

Ex.A2- 19.10.2011         - Copy of Insurance Policy.

Ex.A3- 14.7.2003  - Copy of Driving License.

Ex.A4- 16.8.2012  - Copy of Job slip issued by 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A5- 20.9.2012  - Copy of Legal notice.

Ex.A6- 24.9.2012  - Copy of Ack. card of 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A7- 8.10.2012  - Copy of reply notice issued by 2^nd opposite party.

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-         

Ex.B1 -    -          - Copy of warranty card.

Ex.B2-     -          - Copy of Vehicle service history.

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.