Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/69/2018

B.S.Karthik, S/o. Late B.N. Sankara Narayana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, C/o Bhargavi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.Venkat

29 Aug 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 12.10.2018

Order Date:29.08.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.69/2018

 

 

Between

 

 

B.S.Karthik,

S/o. late. B.N.Sankara Narayana,

Hindu, aged about 38 years,

Aadhar No.8539 5153 1227

Cell No.9964356554

Residing Near K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand,

D.No.1/2954, Chinthamani Town,

Chikballapur District,

Karnataka State – 563 125                                                                         … Complainant.

 

 

And

 

 

1.         The General Manager,

2.         The Work Shop Manager,

 

Both are C/o. Bhargavi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Authorized Maruthi Suzuki Dealer

For Sales cum Services and Spares,

D.No.11-56/1, Renigunta Road,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District – 517 501.                                                           … Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 21.08.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.V.S.Venkat, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.Hari Prasad, Sri.N.Murugeshan Reddy, counsel for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12  of C.P.Act 1986 by the complainant, seeking direction to the opposite parties, for return of the vehicle in fully fit condition, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages under compensation for deficiency in service, to pay Rs.30,000/- towards depreciation of the vehicle cost and to pay litigation expenses.   

            2.  The facts disclose in the complaint are as follows:-  The complainant and his family members are natives of Chinthamani town, Chikballapur District, Karnataka State. He along with his father and other family members came to Tirumala on 15.10.2016. for darshan of Lord Venkateswara, in their own vehicle Omni bearing registration No.AP-03-H-9459. The said vehicle met with an accident and they sustained grievous injuries and admitted in Ruya hospital, Tirupati. The father of the complainant is the owner of the said Omni vehicle. On 22.02.2017, complainant and his father approached the opposite parties for repairs to the vehicle, which was damaged in the accident. The opposite parties issued service estimation letter bearing No.ES 16000307 dt:22.02.2017 for Rs.68,350/-. Complainant and his father handed over the damaged vehicle to the opposite parties service work shop on 07.03.2017 and also paid Rs.10,000/- as advance for the repair works. The opposite parties also issued receipt bearing No.0010149 and demanded repairs and job instructions capturing sheet. Complainant and his father thereafter approached the opposite parties almost   40 times for return of the vehicle fully repaired, but the opposite parties used to postpone the repair works on one pretext or the other. On 10.03.2018 complainant’s father died leaving behind him, his wife and two daughters and one son. The complainant subsequently approached the opposite parties several times for vehicle  repair. Since the complainant’s father sustained leg injury in the accident, they used to travel in taxi to opposite party service centre, when his father was alive. They have spent nearly Rs.50,000/- towards taxi fare. Further, the complainant and his father closed their business, as the vehicle was delivered to opposite parties for repairs and they were not able to use the vehicle for more than 18 months. Before issuing notice, the complainant demanded the opposite parties to bring the vehicle from Nellore, where it was sent for repairs, and in the first week of August, complainant noticed that the vehicle was kept outside the service centre by the road side. The vehicle was damaged, as it was kept at the road side outside the service centre. The opposite parties did not give proper reply when the complainant questioned about keeping the vehicle at the road side without attending  the repairs. The opposite parties therefore acted negligently and carelessly in dealing with the vehicle, and the same amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant suffered mental agony due to the acts of the opposite parties. He issued legal notice on 09.08.2018 calling upon the opposite parties to return the repaired vehicle, but on 10.08.2018 though the opposite parties received the notice, kept quiet without giving any reply. Hence, the complaint.

            3.  Opposite party No.1 filed written version and the same was adopted by opposite party No.2 by filing memo. Opposite parties contended as follows – At the outset complaint averments are denied. The averments in para. 1 and 2 that the complainant and his family members are natives of Chinthamani and they came to Tirumala for Darshan of Lord Venkateswara in their own Omni vehicle and that the vehicle met with an accident and that they sustained grievous injuries and were admitted in Ruya hospital, Tirupati, and that father of the complainant is the owner of the said Omni vehicle, are denied and the complainant is called upon to prove the same. Likewise paras. 3,4,5,6,7 and 8 of the complaint are also denied. The opposite parties stated that they did not know anything about the accident, but on seeing the condition of the vehicle, it appears that the vehicle met with accident, and the vehicle was handed over to opposite party in a bad condition for repairs. By the time of handing over the vehicle to the opposite party, the body of the vehicle was fully damaged. The opposite parties gave rough estimation for repairing the vehicle. The complainant also agreed for the same and handed over the vehicle on 07.03.2017 to opposite parties by paying Rs.10,000/- as advance. To that effect job sheet also issued to the complainant in which it was specifically mentioned about the time of delivery, payment etc. The complainant also agreed for the terms and conditions and signed the job card. The opposite party intimated that he should pay 50% of the estimated amount shown in the estimation report, but the complainant failed to pay the said amount even after repeated demands made by the opposite parties through phone calls. It is the usual practice of the opposite parties that they take all the documents of the vehicle such as R.C., Insurance, Road Tax etc. The complainant assured that they are not readily available with him by that time and he will hand over them in a day or two to the opposite parties. The opposite party believing the words of complainant  took the vehicle to effect the repairs. The complainant did not pay the road tax and vehicle insurance and they were lapsed on 27.10.2016 itself. The complainant has to be blamed for that and they are falsely making allegations against the opposite parties to cover-up their lapses. The mechanics and engineers of opposite party, after inspecting the vehicle, have expressed their inability to repair the vehicle and advised to send the vehicle to Nellore showroom for repairs and accordingly the vehicle was sent to Nellore for repairs. The said vehicle was repaired by opposite party showroom at Nellore and the same was intimated to complainant over phone several times, asking to come and produce the vehicle records and to pay the balance repair charges, to enable them to get the vehicle from Nellore to Tirupati, but the complainant for the reasons best known to him, has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. It is stated that the opposite party is one of the biggest showrooms in South India dealing with selling of so many new cars to the customers, but no one questioned about the acts of opposite party so far. As on the date of handing over the vehicle for repairs by the complainant, opposite party clearly informed about the expenditure of repairs and parking charges of Rs.100/- per day, which will be charged only two days after the date of intimation. But, even after lapse of 4 months, the complainant came up with this complaint making false allegations against the opposite parties. The complainant also agreed to pay interest on the balance repair charges from the date of intimation, till the date of payment. As per the job sheet and as per the terms and conditions, the dispute if any arises that will be filed before the Nellore jurisdiction but not before this Hon’ble Forum. Hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged. The opposite party is ready to hand over / deliver the vehicle even today to the complainant on payment of repair charges with agreed rate of interest at 18% p.a. as per the terms and conditions. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

            4.  Complainant filed the chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of opposite parties one Sri.V.M.Ravi Kumar, General Manager of opposite party No.1, filed the chief affidavit and marked Exs.B1 to B5.

            5.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?

            6.  Point:-  Both sides have filed the written arguments in support of their respective contentions. Complainant counsel argued that Omni vehicle bearing No.AP-03-H-9459, belonging to complainant’s father, met with an accident when the complainant’s family members were traveling from Chintamani to Tirumala, and thereby vehicle got damaged, resulting in injuries to the inmates of the vehicle and as such the vehicle was handed over to opposite party service centre at Tirupati for repairs, and thereafter inspite of several oral demands made by the father of complainant when he was alive and thereafter by the complainant himself, the vehicle was not handed over in good condition after fully repaired and that the vehicle was kept outside the service centre carelessly, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. Further the complainant’s father sustained leg injury in the accident and as such the complainant and his father had to engage taxi to go to workshop for taking delivery of the car. Like that several times they visited the workshop by spending an amount of Rs.50,000/- in total towards taxi charges. Further they sustained loss in the business for nearly 18 months, as they could not use the vehicle, which was handed over to opposite parties service centre for repairs. Finally, the complainant left with no other option but to issue legal notice to opposite parties on 09.08.2018, calling upon them to return the vehicle after fully repaired. The opposite parties received the notice but kept quiet without giving any reply or effecting any repairs to the vehicle.

            7.  The admitted facts are like this – The Omni vehicle bearing No.AP-03-H-9459 was met with an accident and the same was handed over to opposite parties service centre on 07.03.2017 by paying Rs.10,000/- as advance under receipt No.0010149, which is marked as Ex.A3. It is also not in dispute that Ex.A4 which is demand repairs and job instructions capturing sheet (job slip) issued by opposite party to the complainant. The death certificate of the complainant’s father is also not in dispute and the same is marked as Ex.A5. Ex.A6 is the legal heir certificate submitted by the complainant in order to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased B.N.Shankara Narayana, who was the owner of the Omni car, which met with accident. Ex.A7 is self attested copy of Aadhar submitted by complainant. Ex.A8 is legal notice dt:09.08.2018, which was issued to opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on their part and demanding compensation and return of the vehicle in good condition after fully repaired. Ex.A9 is postal acknowledgments dt:10.08.2018, which were filed to show that the said notice issued by the complainant was received by opposite parties 1 and 2. The service estimate for the vehicle dt:22.02.2017 is marked Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is 2 photographs of the vehicle in damaged condition along with news item about the accident dt:15.10.2016. Ex.B1 is equivalent to Ex.A2. Ex.B2 is pre-invoice true copy issued by authorized signatory of Bhargavi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Ex.B3 is equivalent to Ex.A4. Ex.B4 are photographs 6 in number of damaged vehicle. Ex.B5 is 4 photographs of the subject vehicle filed by opposite parties. 

            8.  As seen from the documentary evidence, there is no dispute that the subject vehicle met with an accident on 15.10.2016, and that the vehicle was handed over to opposite party No.2 workshop on 07.03.2017 by paying an advance of Rs.10,000/- under Ex.A3. The demand repairs and job instructions marked as Exs.A4 and B3 prove that the complainant had signed Ex.A4 and therefore the complainant is having knowledge about the parts to be replaced as mentioned in Ex.A4. It is the allegation of the complainant that having taken delivery of the vehicle on 07.03.2017, the opposite parties workshop never cared to get the vehicle repaired and postponed the repair work on one pretext or the other. Ex.A8 is copy of legal notice dt:09.08.2018 issued to opposite parties 1 and 2 wherein the complainant made specific allegation that he and his father visited the workshop about 10 times to enquire about vehicle repairs and after death of the father of the complainant on 10.03.2018 also the complainant several times approached opposite party No.2, to take delivery of the vehicle. It is further alleged that they spent about Rs.50,000/- towards rent to engage taxi to come to Tirupati. Thus the non-response from opposite parties 1 and 2 with regard to repairs of the vehicle amounts to deficiency in service. It is an admitted fact that opposite parties did not issue any reply to the said notice.

            9.  On the other hand, opposite parties counsel argued that as per the service estimate, the net estimate amount for repairs is arrived at Rs.68,350/- and the service estimate was issued on 22.02.2017 i.e. before delivery of the vehicle. Ex.B2 is pre-invoice dt:07.03.2017 wherein net bill amount is shown as Rs.83,224/-. R.W.1 who is the General Manager of opposite party No.1, in his chief affidavit deposed that after inspecting the damaged vehicle, the engineers and mechanics have expressed their inability to repair the vehicle and advised to send the vehicle to Nellore showroom for effecting repairs and accordingly the vehicle was sent to Nellore and the vehicle was repaired at Nellore showroom and the same was intimated to complainant over phone several times and requested to come and produce the vehicle records and to pay balance repair charges, to get the said vehicle from Nellore to Tirupati. But for the reasons best known to complainant he has been postponing the same on some ground or the other. So, as per the evidence of R.W.1, the complainant has not furnished the vehicle records and paid the balance amount. The contention of opposite party counsel that Tirupati Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the repairs effected in Nellore showroom cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the vehicle was deliver to Tirupati showroom and they inturn sent the vehicle to Nellore showroom for effecting repairs of the damaged vehicle. Further, the Engineers of Tirupati showroom also inspected the damaged vehicle before sending it to Nellore showroom. The evidence of R.W.1 also shows that they wanted to get the  repaired vehicle from Nellore to Tirupati, but the complainant did not produce the documents of the vehicle and paid the balance amount. We, therefore hold that this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the evidence of R.W.1.

            10.  The complainant says that he was not informed about the completion of repair work of the damaged vehicle, so as to enable him to take delivery of the vehicle. Opposite parties contention is that though they informed the complainant several times to take delivery of the vehicle, he has not come to workshop to take delivery of the vehicle by paying the balance amount. The conduct of opposite parties in not giving reply to Ex.A8 notice shows that there is negligence on the part of opposite parties in not informing about the completion of repair work. The vehicle was handed over on 07.03.2017 to opposite party No.2 workshop. Ex.A8 was issued on 09.08.2018 i.e. one year five months after the handing over of the vehicle. The complainant also did not file any document to show that he paid the balance amount for taking delivery of the vehicle. Ex.B4 is bunch of photographs 6 in number showing the damaged condition of the vehicle. Ex.B5 is bunch of photographs 4 in number showing the condition of the vehicle after repair. Both these documents are not disputed by the complainant. So, it has to be held that repair work of the vehicle was completed and it is ready for delivery. We are of the view that having taken delivery of the vehicle for effecting repairs, it is the duty of the opposite party workshop to intimate the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle after completion of the repair work. But no documentary evidence is filed except stating that they informed the complainant on phone. Hence, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 in this regard. Their liability is joint in respect of the claim made by the complainant. We also hold that there is no documentary evidence to show that the complainant had paid the balance amount to take delivery of the vehicle. The complainant is asking for direction to opposite parties, to return the vehicle bearing No.AP-03-H-9459 in good condition after completing the repair works. In order to meet the ends of justice, we are of the view that the opposite parties can be given direction to hand over the vehicle to the complainant subject to the condition of payment of balance amount, if not already paid by the complainant, besides granting some compensation. Accordingly, the complaint is to be allowed.

            11.  In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to hand over the vehicle bearing No.AP-03-H-9459 in fit and road worthy condition after completion of repairs works as per Exs.B2 and B3, subject to the condition that complainant paying the balance amount mentioned in Ex.B2 (less Rs.10,000/- already paid in advance), if not already paid. Further the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service on their part, besides paying Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The claim made under 11(c) of the complaint is rejected. The order has to be complied within a period of eight (8) weeks, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.                                       

            Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 29^th day of August, 2019.

 

         Sd/-                                                                                                                    Sd/-                               

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Sri B.S. Karthik (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1:  Sri V.M. Ravi Kumar(Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of photos (2) of vehicle when it damaged position and Sakshi news paper chittoor edition about accident. Dt: 15.10.2016.
	True copy of SERVICE ESTIMATE for OMNI Vehicle. Dt: 22.02.2017
	Original copy of Receipt for Rs.10,000/- from opposite party. Dt: 07.03.2017.
	Carbon copy of DEMANDED REPAIRS AND JOB INSTRUCTIONS CAPTURING SHEET (Job Slip) issued by Bhargavi Auto Mobiles Pvt., Limited, Authorized Maruti Suzuki Dealer for Sales, Service & Spares, A.K. Nagar, Nellore. Dt: 07.03.2017.
	True copy of DEATH CERTIFICATE (Date of Death: 10.03.2018) in favour of B.N. Shankara Narayana  (Complainant Father) issued by Registrar, Birth and Death Registration Unit, Chintamani, Karnataka State. Date of Issue: 31.03.2018.
	Self attested copy of Legal Heir Certificate submitted by complainant. Dt: 16.07.2018.
	Self attested copy of Aadhaar Card (Aadhaar No: 8539 5153 1227) submitted by Complainant.
	Copy of Legal Notice. Dt: 09.08.2018.
	Postal Acknowledgement Cards (2). Dt: 10.08.2018.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	True copy of SERVICE ESTIMATION issued by Authorized Signatories, Bhargavi Auto Mobiles Private Limited. Dt: 22.02.2017.
	True copy of PRE-INVOICE issued by Authorized Signatories, Bhargavi Auto Mobiles Private Limited. Dt: 07.03.2017.
	Attested photo copy of DEMANDED REPAIRS AND JOB INSTRUCTIONS CAPTURING SHEET (Job Slip) issued by Bhargavi Auto Mobiles Pvt., Limited, Authorized Maruti Suzuki Dealer for Sales, Service & Spares, A.K. Nagar, Nellore. Dt: 07.03.2017.
	Original copy of photographs of DAMAGED VEHICLE (6 in Number).
	Photographs (4) of the Complainant’s Vehicle filed by the Opposite parties No. 1 and 2.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

    

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

       

 

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.