IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 21st day of August, 2020
Filed on 06.11.2017
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.296/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.Baiju P.V 1. The East Venice Motors
Puthenpurackal Sales & Service Centre,
Arattuvazhi, YMCA, Alappuzha
Alappuzha,
(Party in person) 2. The East Venice Motors
Sales & Service Centre
Thookkukulam
Alappuzha
(Adv. Jayan. C. Das)
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1. Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
Complainant is the owner of Hero Honda Karizma ZMR motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL.41-D-9289. Due to
starting problem on 27/09/2017 the motor cycle was entrusted at the YMCA showroom and service center of M/s. East Venice Motors. Job Card No. 10101-04-RJC-0917-1620 was given and it was told that he will be called after inspecting the vehicle. After 3 days it was informed that there was battery complaint and so they could not check the vehicle. The next day he went to the service center and ascertained that there was no complaint for the battery. It was informed from the service center that the complaint may be due to fuel pump/ fuel injector.
Since there was no information from the service center he contacted them and thereafter reached the service center. The service adviser told that spare parts are not available after getting it he will be informed. After 2 days it was told that spare parts are costly and so advance payment is to be made. Thereafter the vehicle was shifted to their service center at Thookkukulam. When he reached show room at Thookukulam, the works manager told him that the fuel pump/ fuel injector have to be replaced. His vehicle was
lying in a shabby condition. The vehicle was not returned after rectifying the complaint till 4/11/2017 though it was entrusted on 27/9/2017. He sustained monitory loss and hence the complaint.
2. Opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
There was no delay in returning the vehicle to the complainant after repairs. On inspection it was revealed that there was a complaint for fuel injector and as per the consent of complainant it was returned to him and after repairs it was returned. Inspite of that the complaint was not rectified and so opposite party purchased fuel pump worth Rs.13,890/- from the stockiest and thereafter tried to contact complainant at the given phone number. But complainant could not be contacted, since the phone number was not in existence.
Works worth more than Rs.10,000/- are carried out only after depositing half of the amount by the consumer. Inspite of request half of the amount was not deposited by the complainant and hence delay occurred. There was no will full default from the staffs of the opposite party. As per the order of this Commission dtd. 30/12/2017 the vehicle was returned to the complainant on 1/1/2018 after repairs. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
3. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part
of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?
3. Reliefs and Cost?
4. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 from the side of complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 from the side of opposite party.
5. Point No. 1 &2:-
PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 delivery receipt and Ext.A2 copy of Certificate of Registration. RW1 is the service manager of the opposite party. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version.
The case of PW1, complainant is that he is the registered owner of Hero Honda Karizma Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No. KL-41-D 9289. The said vehicle had some starting trouble. He entrusted the same at the sales and service center of the opposite party at YMCA, Alappuzha on 27/9/2017. Even after three days the vehicle was not returned and thereafter it was shifted to their service center at Thookkukulam. The matter was not informed to him. When he contacted personally it was told that the vehicle had some complaint with fuel pump/fuel injector and it has to be replaced. However inspite of passage of long time the vehicle was not returned and hence the complaint was filed for realizing compensation. According to PW1 the vehicle was entrusted for repairs on 29/7/2017. It was not returned till 4/11/2017 on the date complaint was filed. Opposite party contented that though they tried to contact the complainant in the given telephone number they could not contact him since the number was not in existence. Since there was some major problem the vehicle was shifted to their service center at Thookkukulam. It is their practice to collect 50% of the value of spare parts if it is more than Rs.10,000/-. Inspite of request the amount was not paid by the complainant and hence the delay occurred. Finally they purchased the spare parts worth Rs. 13,890/- from its stockist using thereon money and repaired it. In said circumstances according to them there is no deficiency in service from their part and so the complaint is only to be dismissed.
The fact that the vehicle was entrusted for service on 27/9/2017 is borne from Ext.A1 delivery receipt. It is also an admitted fact that though the vehicle was entrusted at the YMCA showroom it was shifted to Thookkukulam. The dispute is that according to PW1 it was not returned in time after repairs. Whereas according to RW1 the delay occurred since 50% of the value of spare parts was not deposited by the complainant.
From the chief affidavit of RW1 as well as from the order dtd.30/12/2017 in the proceedings paper it is seen that as per the order of this Commission complainant paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to opposite party and deposited an amount of Rs.4,500/- before this Commission and the vehicle was returned after repairs on 1/1/2018. So it is crystal clear that the service charge for the vehicle was more than Rs. 10,000/- since they purchased spare parts. As discussed earlier it is the practice of the opposite party to collect 50% of the value of the spare parts if it is more than Rs.10,000/-. Here in this case the value of spare parts is more than Rs.10,000/- and that is why as per the order dtd. 30/12/2017 complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party and deposited Rs.4,500/- before this commission. So it is evident that complainant has not paid any money to the opposite party before the intervention of this Commission as per order dtd. 30/12/2017. In said circumstance the opposite party cannot be blamed for not returning the vehicle since it is their practice to collect 50% of the value of spare parts if it is more than Rs.10,000/-. It is true that there is a delay of 3 months for returning the vehicle after repairs. But it is to be remembered that the complainant was also responsible for the delay since he did not deposit 50% as requested by the opposite party. In the complaint it is stated that he sustained mental agony on seeing the vehicle at Thookkukulam showroom in a shabby condition and that is why he was compelled to file a complaint before this Commission. Naturally if the vehicle is lying unattended especially in the workshop it will become shabby and it cannot be considered as a deficiency in service. In the said circumstances we are of the view that complainant is not entitled for any compensation especially when the opposite party had complied the order dtd.30/12/2017 within 2 days thatis on 1/1/2018 and handed over the vehicle after repairs. So we do not find any reason to allow the complaint. These points are found against the complainant.
6. Point No.3:-
In the result complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Rs.4,500/- deposited before the commission as per order dated 30/12/2017 will be paid to 2nd opposite party.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 21st day of August, 2020.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Baiju.P.V(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Delivery Receipt
Ext.A2 - Registration Certificate.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Ganesh Kumar(Witness)
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
