Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/222/2018

Sunilkumar S/o Chandrashekar.B.T - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory,Honnasiri Mahindraa - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao

20 Apr 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:15/11/2018

DISPOSED      ON:20/04/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:222/2018

 

DATED: 20^th APRIL 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                                     B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sunil Kumar, S/o Chandrashekar. B.T, Age: 40 Years, Owner and Driver of Mahindra Supro LX BS bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-4535, Rayanahalli, Chitradurga Taluk and District.   (Rep by Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	1. The Authorized Signatory, Honnasiri Mahindra, Unit of H.D. Motors, Challakere Gate, Chitradurga,   2. The Authorized Signatory, Honnasiri Mahindra, Unit of H.D. Motors, No.68/3A, Maralur village, Gubbi Ring Road, Tumkur-572 105.   (Rep by Sri.G. Nagaraj, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of earning from 03.10.2018 to till date, Rs.50,000/- towards visiting charges, OP No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and torture, Rs.5,000/- towards costs and  to grant such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he has purchased Mahindra Supro LX BSIII  8 seater passenger tempo bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-1785 by availing loan from Merchants Souharda Sahakara Bank Niyamita, Chitradurga and the said Finance Bank has issued DD in favour of Bellary Motors, Chitradurga and the complainant has taken delivery of the said vehicle.  The complainant has used the said vehicle as tourist vehicle as well as daily trips from Hiriyur to Chitradurga.  The complainant has regularly servicing and checking up of the vehicle and every time, the vehicle was in good condition.  It is further submitted that, after lapse of 4 years, the vehicle started to give trouble in the engine.  As such, the complainant left the vehicle to OP No.1 the authorized service centre of Mahindra on 03.10.2018., where it is stated that the pump is not working properly.  After 4-5 days, it was informed that the engine is not working and drag on the matter by undertaking repairs of the vehicle.  Finally during the first week of November 2018, it was informed that the vehicle was sent to Tumkur service centre for undertaking repairs.  Nearly 42 days have been lapsed and the vehicle was not repaired.  The entire family of the complainant is depending upon the earnings of the said vehicle and there is no other source of income to the complainant to eke out their livelihood.  The complainant is facing very hard days, till now the complainant has spent nearly Rs.18,000/- for repairs and other charges.  Even then, the vehicle is not ready to run.  OP No.1 promised that the problems will be set right and deliver the vehicle within 2-3 days.  Now the vehicle is with the OP No.1 and it was sent to OP No.2 for repairs.  The complainant is daily visiting the OP No.1 and enquired about the repairs, every time they have given evasive replies.  Now the vehicle is under the custody of the OP No.1.  For the illegal act, deficiency in service, dereliction of duties, the complainant has incurred financial loss, loss of time and energy, loss in reputation in transport business and moreover the complainant has to pay monthly loan installment amount to the Finance Bank.  The cause of action for this complaint arose at Chitradurga which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum     and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

   3.   On service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. G. Nagaraj, Advocate and filed version denying all the allegations made in the complaint. 

According to the version filed by the OPs, it is submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  Further the complainant has sworn to a false affidavit and trying to get unfair benefit from the OPs by filing this false complaint.  In fact these OPs have submitted that, the complainant has approached the OP No.1 on 03.10.2018 along with his Mahindra Supro LX BSIII bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-1785 complaining that the “OBD” light is glowing in the cluster.  The OP No.1 has inspected the vehicle and verified with their Mahindra Dealer Management System about the periodical maintenance of the said vehicle and found that the vehicle was not periodically serviced with any of the authorized dealer of Mahindra company.  At the request of the complainant, the OP No.1 diagnosed the problem of the vehicle and as per the OBD light glowing, the problem was with fuel pump and the same was replaced and after test driving the vehicle with the complainant and after satisfied with the repair, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 16.10.2018.  Again the complainant came back with the vehicle with one more complaint stating that the vehicle was not starting.  Again the vehicle was diagnosed and found that the engine required overhaul, since the complainant has run the same up to 136887 KMs without proper servicing with the authorized dealer.  It is submitted that the OP No.1 is an extension of OP No.2 who is attending only with minor repairs and since the vehicle required major work of overhauling the engine and it would take about one month time to get it repaired as the vehicle required major works, the OP No.1 asked the complainant to take the vehicle to OP No.2.  Further the complainant requested the OP No.1 to make arrangements to send it to OP No.2.  As such, the OP No.1 took the vehicle to OP No.2 at Tumkur and the same was repaired and was ready for delivery on 15.11.2018 and informed the complainant that the vehicle was at OP No.1’s workshop at Chitradurga.  The complainant took delivery of the vehicle at Chitradurga on 17.11.2018 to his satisfaction and after driving the vehicle for two days, the complainant has acknowledged that, he was satisfied with the repairs on 19.11.2018.  It is submitted that, before taking delivery of the vehicle, the complainant has approached the authority with false, frivolous and untenable grounds.  Till today the complainant has not stated about taking delivery of the vehicle.  The OPs have not committed any deficiency of service as stated in the complaint.  Further it is submitted that the complainant has not obtained permission to run the vehicle as stage carrier or for running tourist purposes.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

4.      Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 were got marked and closed his side.   OPs have examined one Sri. Chethan. B.N, the Service Manager as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-10 documents and closed their side.

 

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have delayed nearly 42 days in repairing the vehicle and to hand over the same to him well in time and committed deficiency of service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

         7.       Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                    Point No.1:- In Negative. 

                    Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:- There is no dispute between the complainant has purchased Mahindra Supro LX BSIII  8 seater passenger tempo bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-1785 by availing loan from Merchants Souharda Sahakara Bank Niyamita, Chitradurga from Bellary Motors, Chitradurga.  The complainant has used the said vehicle as tourist vehicle as well as daily trips from Hiriyur to Chitradurga.  After lapse of 4 years, the vehicle started to give trouble in the engine.  As such, the complainant approached the OP No.1 to solve the problem with the vehicle.  By that time, the OP No.1 told the complainant that, there is a pump problem and accordingly, the OP No.1 repaired the vehicle and handed over the same to complainant.  After 5-6 days, the complainant again approached the OP No.1 complaining about the same problems with the vehicle.  By that time, the OP No.1 checked the vehicle and told the complainant that there is a engine problem and agreed to solve the problem and told the complainant the vehicle will be sent to OP No.2 to carry out the repair work.  The OP No.2 repaired the vehicle and sent back to the OP No.1 on 15.11.2018.  The same has been informed the complainant.  The complainant has received the vehicle from the OP No.1 on 17.11.2018 and after two days, the complainant acknowledged that, the vehicle was running properly and repair of the vehicle was satisfied.  After purchasing of the vehicle, the complainant was run nearly 136887 KMs without servicing from any authorized dealer.  Such being the case, the question of proper maintenance of the vehicle by the complainant does not arise.  The complainant has stated in his complaint that, till today the vehicle is with the OP No.1.  According to the arguments addressed by the complainant, the vehicle was already received from the OP No.1.  After receiving the vehicle, it is ran nearly 12000 KMs.  But the Advocate for complainant says that, after receiving the vehicle from the OP No.1, within 2-3 hours, again the problem was arisen, but it is not possible and it is not believable one.  Therefore, the OPs have not committed any deficiency of service while handing over the vehicle to the complainant after repairs.

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the sides.  It is very clear that, the complainant has purchased the above said vehicle from OP No.1 by availing financial assistance of the Merchant’s Souharda Sahakara Bank, Chitradurga and taken delivery of the same from Bellary Motors.  After taking delivery, the complainant has run the same for tourist as well as daily trip from Hiriyur to Chitradurga nearly for four years without any service from the authorized dealer, which shows the complainant has not properly maintained the vehicle with proper service.  After lapse of four years, the complainant has approached the OP No.1 to solve the defects found in the vehicle.  Firstly, the OP No.1 has checked the vehicle and told that, there is a pump problem and repaired the same.  Again the complainant approached the OP No.1 complaining the problems in the vehicle.  By that time, the OP No.1 has traced out the problem found in the vehicle and stated that, there is a problem with the engine and told the complainant that, the vehicle will be sent to OP No.2 for repairs.  The complainant gave consent to send the vehicle to OP No.2.  After that, the OP No.2 has solve the problem found in the vehicle and send the same to OP No.1 and informed the complainant to receive the vehicle.  Accordingly the complainant has received the vehicle on 17.11.2018.  After two days, the complainant has acknowledged about the satisfaction with the repairs on 19.11.2018.  Therefore, viewed from any angle, we don’t find any deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  The main reason for the problem found in the vehicle is that, the complainant has not maintained the vehicle with proper service.      Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.          

            10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 20/04/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

 

DW-1:- Sri. Chethan. B.N, by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Job Advice Slip dated 03.10.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	Tax Invoice dated 15.11.2018
03	Ex-A-3:-	Tax Invoice dated 15.10.2018
04	Ex-A-4:-	Tax Invoice dated 02.11.2017

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Letter dated 26.11.2018
02	Ex-B-2:-	Job Advice Slip
03	Ex.B-3:-	Gate Pass
04	Ex-B-4:-	Gate Pass
05	Ex-B-5:-	Estimation
06	Ex.B-6:-	Inspection Report
07	Ex-B-7:-	Advance receipt
08	Ex-B-8 to 10:-	Bills

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**