Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/121/2016

D.R.Kirankumar S/o D.M.Rudramuni - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Saketh Automobiles. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.N.Sharanappa

11 Aug 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:15/12/2016

DISPOSED      ON:11/08/2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 121/2016

 

DATED: 11^th AUGUST 2017

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

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT/S	D.R. Kirankumar S/o D.M. Rudramuni, Age: 32 Years, Lab Technician and owner of Maruti Alto Car KA-16 MA-3753, R/O Chikkappanahalli village, Madanayakanahalli (Post) Chitradurga Taluk and District.   (Rep by Sri.N. Sharanappa, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Branch Manager, Saketh Automobiles (Authorized Maruthi Suzuki Dealers), Opp:Yatrinivas, N.H.4, Medehalli road, Chitradurga.   2. The General Manager, Saketh Automobiles (Authorized Maruthi Suzuki Dealers), Sira road, Tumkur.     (Rep by Sri.T.S.Niranjan, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. N. THIPPESWAMY: MEMBER

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.27,401/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the owner of Maruthi Alto bearing Reg. No.KA-16 MA-3753. On 06.06.2016 the complainant approached OP No.1 for repair of his car and taken estimation.  The OP No.1 has given estimation for repair of head and other parts and estimated a sum of Rs.30,000/-.  After the estimation made by the OP No.1 the complainant left his car for repair.  It is further submitted that, on 22.06.2016, the OP No.1 as per estimation completed the repair of said car and changed the new head in No.(4-VMPFI) and fixed the rate of Rs.16,256/- and remaining parts charge for Rs.23,254/- and labour charges of Rs.4,145/- in total Rs.26,401/-.  The said amount has received from the complainant and handed over the same.  On 22.06.2016 the complainant has received the car from OP No.1. After formation of the new head, the abnormal sound in the engine started.  Immediately, complainant approached OP No.1 on 28.06.2016 and left the car for repair to the OP No.1 and again the complainant received the car on 30.06.2016.  After lapse of one month, the same problem started in the engine.  Then complainant approached OP No.1 and stated the problem in the engine, the OP No.1 did not give any response and gave the evasive reply and send the complainant without repair.  On 04.08.2016, the complainant left his car before the ESSAR Automobiles, Pillekerenahalli for repairs.  By that time, mechanic of the above said Automobile collect the old head from the complainant and stated that, the old head is good.  But, the OP No.1 changed the old head and installed a new head.  According to the Mechanic, the engine problem was arising in the car due to the change of head.  After repair by the mechanic of ESSAR Automobiles, till today there is no problem occurred in the car.  The changed head is with the complainant.  The OP No.1 is the authorized dealer of Maruthi Car and he is having repair service station.  The OP No.1 give the false guidance to the complainant for change of head.  Due to that, the complainant will be suffered lot of financial loss and mental agony for about 2 months.  On 07.10.2016 complainant send the legal notice to OP No.1 and 2 and asking the financial loss.  OP No.1 refused to receive the notice and OP No.2 received the notice on 13.10.2016 failed to give any reply.  Because of non-giving of the reply by the OPs and non-settling of the claim of the complainant, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  The cause action for the complaint arose on 07.10.2016 and OP No.1 refused to receive the notice on 13.10.2016, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, the complainant has respectfully prayed before this Forum to allow his complaint with cost. 

3.      On service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. T.S.Niranjan, Advocate and filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint.  It is further stated that, complainant is the owner of Maruthi Alto Car bearing Reg.No.KA-16 MA-3753 is not known to them.  The averments made in para 2 of the complaint are true and correct.  The averments made in para 3 of the complaint are not fully correct and the estimate given for repairs was for Rs.28,000/- and the remaining portion of the averments are entirely denied as false.  It is further submitted that, after satisfaction from the complainant about the repairs, the above said car has been handed over to him by receiving Rs.27,401/- on 22.06.2016.  The averments made in para 5 of the complaint that, after one week, the cylinder head fitted to the said car and engine started giving abnormal sound.  Immediately on the complainant approached OP No.1 28.06.2016 and left the car with OP No.1 for repairs and taken to his custody on 30.06.2016.  Again after one month, the same problems occurred.  Complainant approached OP No.1 and stated about the problems, but the OP No.1 did not response properly and stated that, the car is defective one are all denied as false.  The averments made in para 6 of the complaint that, on 04.08.2016 the complainant left the car for repairs to ESSAR Automobiles, Chitradurga.  The mechanic of the said automobiles after checking the cylinder head removed from the car by OP No.1 is good and again fitted to the car by removing the new cylinder head fitted to the car by OP No.1.  The problems occurred in the car is due to fitting of the new cylinder head No.4-VMPFI often and often only and after repair work conducted by ESSAR Automobiles, Chitradurga are all denied as false.  The averments made in para 7 of the complaint that, the new cylinder head is with the complainant.  It is further submitted that, OP No.1 is the authorized dealer for cars, repairs and service, it has intentionally giving wrong information and fake job-sheets to gain wrong-full gain are denied as false.  The averments made in para 8 that, the OP No.1 has done repair and service of the vehicle is not good and proper and further the OP No.1 has caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant is denied as false and the same is put to strict proof of the same.  The averments made in para 9 to 12 of the complaint are all false.  There is no cause of action for entertain this complaint.  In view of this point also, the complaint is not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.   

It is submitted by the OPs that, on 06.06.2016, the complainant approached OP No.1 and obtained estimation for Rs.28,000/- and the OP has received Rs.23,254/- and Rs.4,145/- from the complainant on 22.06.2016 for change of head and other 15 parts of the car.  The OP has obtained consent from the complainant before changing the head and after obtaining consent from the complainant the OP has repaired the car. On 28.06.2016, the complainant left the car with the OP No.1 and told that, there is some abnormal sound from the car while running.  After repair, the complainant take back the car.  According to the complainant, on 30.06.2016 again the complainant approached OP No.1 complaining that there is some abnormal sound from the cylinder head.  Due to that sound, the car stopped are denied as false.  The complainant never left the car for the above said complaints on 30.06.2016 before the OPs, it is not within the knowledge of OPs.  The complainant left the car before the ESSAR Automobiles on 04.08.2016.  There is no any deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the claim of the complainant is not sustainable under law and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 4.     Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence, Sri. Pramod. K, Mechanical Technician of SJP and SRESS Automobiles examined as PW-2 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-9 were got marked. On behalf of OPs, one Sri. Sudarshan G.T, Manager of OP No1 has examined as DW-1 and Sri. Girish M.M has examined as DW-2 by filing the affidavit evidence and Sri. Naveen Kolaki has examined as DW-3 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 to B-6 documents have been got marked.  

 

5.      Arguments of both sides 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 for unnecessarily fixing the cylinder head to the car of the complainant?

              (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, on 06.06.2016 the complainant has approached OP No.1 for repair of his car bearing No.KA-16 MA-3753 Maruthi Alto Car.  By that time, the OP No.1 has given the estimation to the complainant for repair of the above said car for Rs.30,000/-.  The OP No.1 has received the total amount of Rs.27,401/- from the complainant on 22.06.2016 for repair charge and change of head.  Some abnormal sound arising in the said car, the complainant approach the OP No.1 for repair the same.  The OP No.1 has repaired the said car and handed over same to the complainant.  Again the complainant has approached the OP No.1 for same problem.  By that time, the OP has given evasive answer to the complainant.  The advocate for complainant argued that, the complainant has left his car for repair before the A-1 Auto machine shop, Davanagere, by that time the mechanic check the head changed by OP No.1 and says that, the head is working properly, the question of changing the same does not arise.  So, the OP has only intention to collect the money from the complainant by way of change the head.  The OP has denied all the averments of the complaint and the Advocate for OP argued that, the head is concerned to the complainant car is not properly working. The complainant has relied upon Ex.A-1 to A-12 documents those documents are clearly shows that, the concerned to the complainant is good and the copies of the photo produced by the complainant is concerned to the head.  The technical person of the complainant has examined as CW-2 and he says that, the head is concerned to the complainant car is good at the time of changing the head.   The OPs have examined RW-2 to RW-4, they are the technical persons concerned to the OP.  Such being the case, the evidence of RW-2 to RW-4 does not believable, because those are the interested witnesses of OPs.   The OP No.1 has not produced any documents to show that, the complainant has given the consent for change of head of the car.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the OPs are liable to pay Rs.16,266/- towards cost of the cylinder head.  The OP No.1 has committed deficiency of service in carrying out the repair of the car.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            9.     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 C.P Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,266/- the cost of cylinder head along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint.   

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

The complainant is hereby directed to handover the cylinder head to the OPs by receiving the above said amount from the OPs. 

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 President after the correction of the draft on 11/08/2017 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.

PW-2:-Pramod.K, by way of affidavit evidence. 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. Sudarshan G.T by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-2:-Sri. Girish M.M by way of affidavit evidence. 

DW-3:-Sri. Naveen Kolaki by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Job Card Retail cash memo dated 22.06.2016
02	Ex-A-2:-	Counter sale retail cash memo of ESSAR Auto motives dated 04.08.2016
03	Ex-A-3:-	Labour cash bill dated 04.08.2016 of A-1 Auto Machine Shop
04	Ex-A-4:-	Cash Bill of SGP Auto works and Ashok Automobiles dated 24.08.2016 and 26.08.2016
05	Ex.A-5:-	Office copy of the legal notice dated 07.10.2016
06	Ex.A-6:-	Returned RPAD cover refused by the Branch Manager of OP No.1
07	Ex.A-7:-	Postal receipt and served acknowledgement to the OP No.2
08	Ex.A-8 and 9:-	Photocopies of the head

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Purchase order dated 09.06.2016
02	Ex-B-2:-	Diploma Certificate of Girish M
03	Ex.B-3:-	Certificate issued by NIE-EICHER
04	Ex.B-4:-	Experience certificate
05	Ex.B-5	Experience certificate of Girish.M
06	Ex.B-6	Diplomo certificate of Naveen Kolaki

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**