Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/34/2017

Sri.L.R.Ravi S/o Rangappareddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized Signatory,Bellary Motor Sales Private Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.C.J.Lakshminarsimha

14 Jul 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:22.03.2017

DISPOSED      ON:14.07.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 34/2017

 

DATED:  14^th JULY 2017

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

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT	L.R. Ravi S/o M. Rangappa Reddy, Age:  44 Years, Business and Agriculturist, Shesha Nilaya, Near Bhuvaneshwari Circle, Main Road, Municipal Colony, Kelagote, Chitradurga.      (Rep by Sri.C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Authorized Signatory, Bellary Motors Sales Pvt. Ltd., Dealers of all Mahindra & Mahindra Automotive Products, OPP: Vaibhav Hotel, JMIT College Road, Chitradurga.   2. The Authorized Signatory, Bellary Motors Sales Pvt. Ltd., Dealers of all Mahindra & Mahindra Automotive Products, NH-63, Ananthapur Road, Bellary.   (Ex-parte)

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 OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards damages/compensation along with interest @ 2% p.m from the date of complaint till realization, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony/sufferings and Rs.45,000/- towards legal notice charges in all Rs.1,95,000/- with interest and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the owner of Mahindra Supro Vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 C-5390, the same was purchased for his business purpose and other bonafide purposes from the OP No.1.  Complainant is the transport contractor of Prajavani Daily News Paper, used to supply the paper from Chitradurga to Hiriyur and Hiriyur to Javagondanahalli daily.  He is earning income from the same.  In addition to that, the complainant using the said vehicle for his day to day affairs including the business and agricultural purposes.  The complainant is earning monthly income of Rs.50,000/- p.m from the same.  It is further submitted that, the OPs are the Branch and Head Office of Dealers of Mahindra and Mahindra Automotive products respectively.  Both have to give utmost good services to their esteemed customers without any deficiency and negligence.  There is a clear warranty for the said vehicle even till this day.  Such being the case and things stands stood, there were some technical defects like gearbox, turbo problems, housing joint problems, less mileage and other technical problems found in the said vehicle, for which the complainant left the vehicle for getting repair of the same with the OP No.1 on 12.08.2016.  The OP No.1 has kept the said vehicle up to 24.08.2016 and handed over the same to the complainant by keeping the same with him for about 13 days.  Then the OP No.1 might have repaired the same but, same problems arise again.  The same defects found in the said vehicle after running the same for about two days.  Then the complainant has again rushed to the OP No.1 on 27.08.2016, OP No.1 has kept the same idle in their shop and directed to hand over the said vehicle to OP No.2.   Though there is a clear warranty on the said vehicle on the date of getting repair, the complainant has sent the vehicle to OP No.2 by paying toeing charges of Rs.2,500/- from Bellary to Chitradurga.  OP No.2 repaired the said vehicle and handed over the same to the complainant on 03.09.2016.  Between these days, the complainant has sent another vehicle for transportation of Prajavani Daily News Paper through some other vehicle by hiring the same and paid money.  Due to the delay, deficiency in service and negligence act and defective service made by the OPs by keeping the same for a long period of 22 days, thereby the complainant has suffered lot of inconvenience, annoyance and also suffered mental agony with financial loss.  If the said problems and delay are not made by the OPs, there is no necessity of hiring another vehicle for transport of Prajavani Daily News Paper, thereby the complainant has suffered lot of mental agony, loss of earnings, inconvenience, toeing fee and other unexplainable loss due to deficiency and negligent service on the part of OPs.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for damages.  The complainant has issued notice to the OPs but, OPs neither replied nor complied terms of the legal notice till today.   The cause of action for the complaint arise when the OP No.1 has sold and supplied the defective vehicle to the complainant, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore, prayed for allowing the complaint.  

 3.    On service of notice, OPs did not appear failed to appear before this Forum and hence placed ex-parte. 

 4.    Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-5 were got marked.

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 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:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, complainant is doing the transportation business for supply of Prajavani Daily Newspaper in his Mahindra Supro Vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 C-5390 from Chitradurga to Hiriyur and Hiriyur to Javagondanahalli.  In addition to that, the complainant using the said vehicle for his day to day affairs including the business and agricultural purposes and earning income of Rs.50,000/- p.m from the same.  The OPs are the Branch and Head Office of Dealers of Mahindra and Mahindra Automotive products respectively.   There is a clear warranty for the said vehicle even till this day.  Such being the case, there is some technical defects like gearbox, turbo problems, housing joint problems, less mileage and other technical problems found in the said vehicle.  Complainant left the vehicle for getting repair of the same with the OP No.1 on 12.08.2016.  The OP No.1 has kept the said vehicle up to 24.08.2016 and handed over the same to the complainant by keeping the same with him for about 13 days but, same problems arise again in the vehicle after running the same for about two days.  The complainant has again rushed to the OP No.1 on 27.08.2016, OP No.1 has kept the same idle in their shop and directed to hand over the said vehicle to OP No.2.   The complainant has sent the vehicle to OP No.2 by paying toeing charges of Rs.2,500/- from Bellary to Chitradurga though there is a clear warranty on the said vehicle on the date of getting repair.  OP No.2 repaired the said vehicle and handed over the same to the complainant on 03.09.2016.  Between these days, the complainant has sent another vehicle for transportation of Prajavani Daily News Paper through some other vehicle by hiring the same and paid money.  Due to the delay, deficiency in service and negligence act and defective service made by the OPs by keeping the same for a long period of 22 days, thereby the complainant has suffered lot of inconvenience and also suffered mental agony with financial loss.  If the said problems and delay are not made by the OPs, there is no necessity of hiring another vehicle for transport of Prajavani Daily News Paper, thereby the complainant has suffered lot of mental agony, loss of earnings, inconvenience, toeing fee and other unexplainable loss due to deficiency and negligent service on the part of OPs.   

9.     In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on documents like office copy of the legal notice dated 26.12.2016 marked as Ex.A-1, Postal receipt and served acknowledgements marked as Ex.A-2, Cash Bill dated 10.09.2016 for Rs.2,500/- towards toeing the vehicle from Chitradurga to Bellary marked as Ex.A-3, Cash Bill dated 15.09.2016 for Rs.15,464/- towards hiring the vehicle for supply of Prajavani Daily Newspaper marked as Ex.A-4 and Pre-Invoice dated 25.08.2016  for running repair marked as Ex.A-5. 

10.   On hearing the contention of complainant and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out from the Ex.A-3 that, the complainant has paid Rs.2,500/- for toeing the vehicle from Chitradurga to Bellary which shows the vehicle had some defects.  Due to the defects in the vehicle, the complainant has left the vehicle for repairs with OP No.1.  Further the complainant has spent nearly Rs.15,464/- for hiring the vehicle for transportation of the Prajavani Newspaper from Chitradurga to Hiriyur, Hiriyur to Javagondanahalli through some other vehicle as per Ex.A-4, which caused financial loss and mental agony.  Due to selling of  the defective vehicle by the OPs to the complainant he has suffered mental agony and financial loss, which cannot be compensated by the OPs unless on payment of compensation.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

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

ORDER

It is ordered that, the above complaint filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of C.P. Act is hereby allowed in part.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization. 

It is further directed the OPs to pay Rs.2,500/- towards toeing charges, Rs.15,464/- towards hiring charges and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 14/07/2017 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 OPs:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Office copy of legal Notice dated 26.12.2016
02	Ex-A-2:-	Postal receipt and acknowledgements
03	Ex.A-3:-	Cash Bill dated 10.09.2016
04	Ex.A-4:-	Cash Bill dated 13.09.2016
05	Ex.A-5:-	Pre-Invoice dated 25.08.2016

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**