COMPLAINT FILED ON: 25.09.2009

DISPOED ON:20.12.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

20^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011

  PRESENT:-  SRI. B. S. REDDY                      PRESIDENT

                     SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA              MEMBER                   

                     SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA                 MEMBER

COMPLAINT No.2271/2009

O R D E R S

SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT

The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P.) to pay sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation with interest at 18% p.a. on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

2. The case of the complainant is to be stated in brief is that:

The complainant purchased Skoda-Laura Elegance 1.9 TDI car for about Rs.18,00,000/- on 24.11.2007 from the OP. The said car met with an accident on 05.03.2008 and the same was taken to OP for accidental repairs. OP promised to return the said car within 15 days with an assurance that the said repair charges would be claimed from the HDFC Insurance. Even after expiry of four months OP failed to deliver the said car, the complainant has sent letter, e-mail and has been several calls to OP for which OP failed to act. OP committed deficiency of service, as a result of which complainant who is a business man has suffered financial loss and immense mental torture. For the legal notice dated 17.07.2008 OP replied. Thereafter the General Manager of OP called to the complainant to take the delivery of the said car on 08.08.2008 after paying the repair expenses of Rs.1,12,433/- apart from the amount paid by the Insurance Company. There has been unreasonable delay on the part of the OP in delivering the said car. The complainant was forced to pay the said amount and take delivery of the car. This has made the complainant suffer mental torture and huge financial losses. Hence taking all this into account, the complainant is claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the OP.

3. On appearance, OP filed version contending that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious filed with sole intention of harassing the OP. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the car on 24.11.2007 and the car was brought for first service on 22.02.2008 and was delivered back on the very same day. Thereafter the car was brought to the workshop of OP on 05.03.2008 as it was involved in an accident. It is false to state the OP assured the complainant that the car would be deliveed within 15 days. The surveyor from HDFC insurance visited OP workshop and estimated the costs on 10.03.2008. Again the surveyor visited the workshop on the second time on 13.03.2008 and took photographs. The second surveyor visited the workshop on 03.04.2008 and again on 08.04.2008 and took photographs again and gave his approval only in April – 2008. Though the approval from the surveyor was received on 08.04.2008, the order for the parts to be replaced had been already placed with the mother company in Czech Republic on 15.03.2008 and same was delivered on 20.04.2008. OP proceeded to repair the car on 25.04.2008. On that date while assembling the car the technicians found the components Turbo Charger and AC Compressor was also damaged. OP again approached the surveyor and sought approval of the same. The car was repaired and ready to be delivered to the complainant on 02.07.2008. On 12.07.2008 OP requested one Dr. Sivakumar who coordinated on behalf of complainant to take delivery of the car and he refused to take delivery of the car and pay the balance amount. Instead he demanded the compensation to be given to him only then he will receive the car. On 17.07.2008 the representative’s of the OP visited the complainant’s residence and tried persuading the complainant to take delivery. The complainant refused merely to avoid paying legitimate amount due to the OP and also to illegally extract money from the OP. Delay if any is only due to delay in surveyor inspecting the vehicle and also in receiving parts which had to be imported from the present company. It is stated that the OP has done everything necessary to follow the procedure and avoid inconvenience to the complainant. The complainant is well aware that OP has to procure the spare parts from its parent company and this does take time. The complainant is well aware that the car is imported from Czech Republic and only assembled here in India. It is denied that OP has committed deficiency in service and as a result complainant who is a business man has suffered financial loss and immense mental torture. In the legal notice complainant called upon OP to deliver the car within 3 days along with the damages of Rs.3,00,000/-. The car was ready for delivery on 03.07.2008 itself, but it was the complainant who chose not to take delivery of the car and got a legal notice issued instead. The complainant also refused to pay the balance amount of repair charges, the complainant had no justification to make the demands and OP was in the process of sorting out the issues with the complainant and requesting to pay the repair charges and take delivery of the car. It is false to state that the complainant was contacted only on 08.08.2008, the complainant was called and contacted in the month of July – 2008 itself. It is denied that there has been an unreasonable delay on the part of the OP and that there is no justification for claiming additional amount over the amount paid by the insurance company. In fact OP placed order for damaged part with their mother company in Czech Republic on 15.03.2008 itself whereas the approval from the surveyor received on 08.04.2008. The OP did the same with the sole intention of avoiding inconvenience to the complainant. When the car was opened for complete examination, the OP noted that other parts were damaged as well. It had to get approval from the insurance company and also get the part from its parent company. The complainant is not eligible to claim compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4. The complainant in order to substantiate the complaint averments filed affidavit evidence. One Mr.Vishwanath,          employed as the Head Service of OP filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version.

5. Both the parties filed Written Arguments.

6. Arguments on both sides heard.

7. Points for consideration are:

              Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the

                                  deficiency in service on the part of

                                  the OP?

     Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled        

                        for the relief’s now claimed?

             Point No.3:- To what Order?

8. We record over findings on the above points:

     Point No.1:- Negative.

             Point No.2:- Negative. 

     Point No.3:- As per final Order.

R E A S O N S

9.   The undisputed facts are that the complainant had purchased Skoda-Laura Elegance 1.9 TDI car on 24.11.2007. The said car met with an accident on 05.03.2008 and the same was taken to OP for accidental repairs. The complainant claims that at the time when car was taken for repairs, OP promised to return the same within 15 days and that the repair charges would be claimed from the HDFC Insurance under which the vehicle was insured but OP had collected additional amount of Rs.1,12,433/- apart from the amount paid by the Insurance Company and there was delay in attending the repairs and returning the car. It is stated that the car was delivered on 13.08.2008, the complainant was forced to pay the additional amount of Rs.1,12,433/- over the amount paid by the Insurance Company thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP in delivering the car after attending the accident repairs.

10.   The defence of the OP is the car was brought to Op’s workshop on 05.03.2008 for accident repairs. The Surveyor from HDFC Insurance visited OP workshop on 10.03.2008 and 13.03.2008 estimated the costs of repairs. Further another Surveyor of the same Insurance Company visited OP workshop on 03.04.2008 and 08.04.2008 and given approval only on 08.04.2008. It is stated that OP has already placed orders with Mother Company in Czech Republic on 15.03.2008 and the spare parts were delivered on 20.04.2008. Thus it is stated that the orders for spare parts were placed much earlier to the approval by Surveyor with sole intention of avoiding delay in repairing the car. OP proceeded to repair the car on 25.04.2008, while assembling the car the technicians found the components Turbo Charger and AC Compressor were also damaged. OP again approached the surveyor and sought approval of the same. The car was repaired and ready to be delivered on 02.07.2008. One Dr.Sivakumar who coordinated on behalf of the complainant was requested to take delivery of the car on 12.07.2008 but he refused to take the delivery of the car and pay the balance amount. Instead he demanded compensation then only he would take the deliver of the car. Thus it is contended that the complainant refused to take delivery of the car only to avoid paying the legitimate amount due to OP. Thus it is stated that delay if any is only due to delay in Surveyor inspecting the vehicle and also receiving the parts which had to be imported from the parent company. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

11.   It may be noted that as per the Tax Invoice dt.03.07.2008 produced by the complainant issued by OP, the total bill for repairs is worked out at Rs.5,39,241/-. Out of the same, the Insurance Company has reimbursed admissible amount of Rs.4,26,808.59/-. The balance amount of Rs.1,12,433 is paid by the complainant on 13.08.2008 while taking delivery of the vehicle. It appears that the complainant intended that the entire amount of the repairs is to be collected from the Insurance Company but the insurance Company has paid the admissible claim and OP has collected the balance amount from the complainant. The vehicle in question is imported from Czech Republic and only assembled in India. The spare parts required for attending the repairs were ordered and got imported from the parent Company. The approval from the Surveyor of the Insurance was received by OP on 08.04.2008. By that time, OP had already placed orders with the Mother Company in Czech Republic for spare parts and got the same on 20^th April 2008. From 25.04.2008 the work of repairing the car started, at that time the technicians found the components Turbo Charger and AC Compressor has also damaged, thereafter OP approached the Surveyor and sought approval of the same. OP attended the entire repair works and the car was ready for delivery on 02.07.2008. Thereafter, it appears that the complainant was not prepared to pay the balance amount of repair charges, and take the delivery of the car. The OP cannot be blamed for further delay from 03.07.2008 to 13.08.2008, for the reason that the complainant could have paid the balance amount of repairs and taken the delivery of the car in the month of July-2008 itself. It appears that the delay up to 02.07.2008 for attending the repairs of car was only on account of delay in Surveyor inspecting the vehicle and also in receiving the spare parts which had to be imported from Parent Company.

12.   For the notice dt.17.07.2008 and 08.08.2008. OP had sent reply on 15.09.2008. In the notice dt.08.08.2008 it is clearly stated that the General Manager of OP contacted the complainant stating that the said car is ready for delivery and demanding the complainant to deposit certain charges and take delivery of the car. It is stated that the loss incurred due to unreasonable delay in repairing the car and delivering the same, to the complainant is much more than the charges claimed by OP. The General Manager intimated the complainant that unless charges demanded is paid, the car would not be delivered. From the contents of this notice, it becomes clear that after receipt of the notice dt.17.07.2008. OP’s General Manager has already informed the complainant to pay the balance repair charges and take delivery of the car but the complainant has not paid the repair charges and taken the delivery of the car. The very fact that the tax invoice with regard to the repair charges is dt.03.07.2008 clearly goes to show that the car was already repaired and was ready for delivery as on 03.07.2008. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no unreasonable delay in attending the repairs on the part of the OP. The complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant dismissed.   Considering the nature of dispute no order as to costs.

Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20^th day of DECEMBER– 2011.)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

       Cs.