Date of filing:      10.08.2018

                                                                                                                                 Date of disposal : 15.11.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L.,                                        ....MEMBER-II

 

RBT/CC. No.44/2022

THIS TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

(CC.No.05/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)

 

Mr.K.Ramachandirann,

Post Master General (Retired),

Residing at No.37, 5th Avenue,

Besane Nagar, Chennai – 600 090.                                                   ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

1.The General Manager,

    FORD Service Station, 

   S.F.267/2, Poonamallee Bye Pass Road,

   Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056.

 

2.M/s.Chennai Ford,

    No.423, Poonamallee High Road,

   Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106.                                           .......Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                            :   Mr.K.Rengarajan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                     :   M/s.M.Swaminathan, Advocate.

                         

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.44/2022 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.05/2019 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 01.11.2022 in the presence of Mr.K.Rengarajan Advocate, counsel for the complainant and M/s.M.Swaminathan Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in carrying out the repairs for the complainant’s Ford vehicle along with a prayer to refund a sum of Rs.55,000/- collected from the complainant with 24% interest from 06.05.2017 till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.  

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

It was the case of the complainant that he owns a FORD Ikon Car 2004 bearing Registration No.TN-37- AH-5674. As the car needed specific expert servicing, he thought it fit to entrust it to a company service centre and therefore he approached the company service centre at Poonamallee and as per his request, the car was picked up from his residence on 19.04.2017 at about 10am.  The complainant explained in detail the specific repairs needed viz, Jerking, sparking not coming out in one of the cylinders, less cooling in AC, vibrations while starting the vehicle, leakage of oil in the engine etc. to the person who was deputed to pick-up the car from his residence and later one Shri.Sathishkumar employed as mechanic in the company’s service centre was also briefed on the specific problems which required proper and particular attention.  The complainant submits that he had also informed the service centre to inform him in advance of the estimated cost of replacement of spares wherever necessary and also the approximate service charges and seeks his formal approval in advance and also requested for delivery of the car within 10 days as the same was urgently required. Even after 10 days, the service centre did not attend to the repairs to the car and the complainant was informed by the service centre over phone that the estimated cost of repairs including service charges would be around Rs.42,000/- to Rs.45,000/- and if the suggested repairs were carried out, the car would need no further major repairs for at least three years.  The complainant contacted the service centre on 02.05.2017 to know the status of service he learnt that the car had not been serviced so far.  However, the Manager informed that the delay was due to non-availability of spares and that the service would be completed immediately and that the complainant could take delivery of the car on 06.05.2017. The complainant went to the service centre in person on 06.05.2017 but to his shock and surprise the complainant was asked to pay Rs.60,609/- towards service charges.  The complainant had given approval only for charges in the range of Rs.42,000/- to Rs.45,000/- and the complainant took delivery of the car under protest after paying Rs.55,000/-.  After taking delivery of the car, the car was driven by one Mr.Samuel, one of the staff of the Ford Service centre and as he drove away the car from the service station at Poonamallee to his home, there was an unusual and rattling sound emanating from the suspension and repeated jerks were felt.  On being informed to the Manager over phone, the car was once again taken back by the service station for check-up and it was re-delivered to the complainant on 09.05.2017 but the rattling sound was still persistent. Therefore the complainant informed the Manager once again in person and a written complaint specifying the defects was also handed over to opposite party.  Though the complainant was assured that the car would be redelivered on 11.05.2017 after necessary check-up, it was actually delivered by one Driver Mr.Babu on 16.05.2017.  Once again the complainant checked up the car, he was quite upset as the defects like jerking, cylinder work and AC cooling still persisted and that the repairs had not been carried out satisfactorily. It was submitted that in view of the fact that the service rendered by the Ford Service Station at Poonamallee was totally unprofessional even after charging the complainant heavily, there was no use in persisting with the poor quality of service offered by the service. As the defects still persisted he took the car to M/s.MSS Motors at 65, 2nd Street, Ambika Nagar, Nerkumdram, Chennai 107 on 21.05.2017 and they attended to the defects like jerking and vibration immediately and the service was also completed satisfactorily for which the complainant had spent additional sum of Rs.2900/- towards additional spares and service charges. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.55,000/- collected from the complainant with 24% interest from 06.05.2017 till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.  

Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:- 

The opposite parties filed version disputing the complaint allegations contended inter alia that the complainant’s Ford Ikon Car bearing Registration No.TN 37 AH 5674 was 2004 Model was almost 14 years old vehicle.  Further Fitness Certificate as per the R.C. Book was valid from 16.09.2004 to 15.09.2019.  The opposite parties admit the facts that the complainant’s vehicle was picked up from his residence on 19.04.2017.  As per the norms of the company, the opposite parties used to given the estimate cost of repair at the first instance and get the approval from the customer.  Further they will carry out the repair works only after getting consent from the customer.  Likewise after informing the estimated cost and getting consent form the complainant only for the replacement of certain specific spare parts the opposite parties started to carry out the repair works.  Estimate cost may defer from the actual cost because after starting dismantling the actual repair work then only the wear and tear of parts was know exactly for the said car, only then opposite parties would come to know the exact repair to be carried out.  It was submitted that as per the consent given by the complainant the opposite parties replaced certain essential spare parts such as Engine Oil, Filter oil SOHC, Filter-Fuel, Fluid-Brake, Tape, Wash Fluid pouch, Superwiz, damper crankshaft, kit crankshaft ret, cover and Gasket Asy, Gasket oil pan, radiator say, clutch Disc and plat, clutch slave Cyl, breake pad, strap wiring, Evaporator, Ac gas, Compressor oil, restrictor and Filter A/c Fresh Air which was essential for running of the car without brake down. Further the opposite parties had also given a detailed bill for the replacement of all such spare parts.  After full satisfaction only the complainant took delivery of the car.  The opposite parties had received a sum of Rs.3935.50/- towards the labour cost for the entire repair works and sum of Rs.51,064.59/- towards replacement of spare parts including tax after discount and deduction from the total amount of Rs.60,609.16/-.  The complainant had paid only Rs.55,000/- after discount. When the complainant left the said car to opposite party on 14.12.2016, they informed about the front suspension noise.  The opposite parties states that the complainant had fitted local spare parts and further the complainant did not approve they were unable to carry out the repairs with regard to front suspension.  Even at the time of handing over the said car to opposite parties on 19.04.2017, the complainant did not report about the suspension noise.  The complainant had not complained about the spare parts replaced by the opposite parties. The opposite party identified the front suspension noise and reported the same to him during the first service dated 14.12.2016.  But it was the complainant who did not approve and therefore the opposite parties were not in a position to carry out the repair. Further as the said car was nearly 14 years old naturally there would be wear and tear of each and every spare parts.  Moreover the said car was not serviced regularly with the opposite parties.  Every now and then it was serviced at unauthorized service centers.  The spare parts replaced for the said car by the opposite parties was not at fault.  As per ford norms servicing at unauthorized centre the opposite party cannot be held liable. Thus sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A10. The opposite parties proof affidavit was filed but no documents were filed on their side.

Points for consideration:

Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in carrying out the service and repairs for the complainant’s Ford vehicle and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1;-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

Pick-up & Drop Service Authorisation Form dated 19.04.2017 was marked as Ex.A1;

Service Proforma Invoice dated 20.04.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;

Receipt for payment of Rs.55,000/- received by Chennai Ford dated 06.05.2017 was marked as Ex.A3;

Letter sent by the complainant to the Service Manager, Chennai Ford dated 09.05.2017 was marked as Ex.A4;

 Slip issued by the 2nd opposite party dated 20.05.2017 was marked as Ex.A5;

Memo issued by Thanushkumar Auto Stores for spares & service undertaken dated 21.05.2017 was marked as Ex.A6;

Cash bill issued by M/s. M.S.S. Motors, Chennai dated 21.05.2017 was marked as Ex.A7;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party dated 03.07.2017 was marked as Ex.A8;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party dated 23.12.2017 was marked as Ex.A9;

Reply sent by the 2nd opposite party dated 08.01.2018 was marked as Ex.A10;

 Point No.1:-

 Heard both parties' oral arguments and perused the pleadings and materials submitted by them.

It is the case of the complainant that he left his Ford Ikon Car 2004 bearing Registration No.TN 37 AH 5674 for service to the opposite party to carry out repairs like Jerking, sparking not coming out in one cylinder, less cooling, leakage in engine oil etc. The opposite parties at the preliminary point estimated the repair charges between Rs.42,000/- to 45,000/-.  However, the complainant was made to pay Rs.55,000/- at the time of delivery of the car.  Further the car was not properly serviced and after delivery the car had unusual and rattling sound emanating from the suspension and also had repeated jerks.  Even for the 2nd time it was given for repair however, still the repairs were not carried out and hence the defects were rectified by M/s MSS Motors and an additional sum of Rs.2,900/- was spent for the repairs.  Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed.

On the other hand, the crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties is that the complainant’s car Ford Ikon Car was already 14 years old and had experienced normal wear and tear.  The car was made to run in a good condition after making the repairs requested by the complainant.  Further, the alleged repairs carried out subsequently in MSS Motors was only ignition coil replacement and some gas fuming check-up done for a cost of Rs.1,000/-.  In such circumstances he argued that in the absence of any expert opinion to prove that the repairs were not properly done he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

This commission appraised the evidence and pleadings and of the view that the complainant had miserably failed to substantiate his allegations.  It is an admissible defence by the opposite parties that already the vehicle was 14 years old and would have sustained normal wear and tear.  The factum of repairing the vehicle for a cost of Rs.55,000/- was not denied by either parties also the complainant subsequently had spent Rs.1,000/- for certain repairs is also an admitted fact.  When the repairs carried out by the opposite parties was not satisfactory and complete the complainant ought to have spent a huge amount and not merely a sum of Rs.1,000/-.  Also at present the complainant was not having any grievance with the running of the vehicle which fact has to be taken into account. Further no expert opinion was filed to show that the service/repairs carried out by the opposite parties were not proper.  In such scenario, this commission could not hold liable the opposite parties for any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  The point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and as against the complainant.

 

Point No.2:-

As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, he is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed in the complaint from the opposite parties.  Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost. 

  Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 15th day of November 2022.

 

     Sd/-                                                                                                                Sd/-                                                                                                       

MEMBER-II                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 19.04.2017 Pick-up &Drop Service Authorisation Form. Xerox

Ex.A2 20.04.2017 Service Proforma Invoice. Xerox

Ex.A3 06.05.2017 Receipt for payment of Rs.55,000/- received by Chennai Ford. Xerox

Ex.A4 09.05.2017 Letter sent by the complainant to the Service Manager, Chennai Ford. Xerox

Ex.A5 20.05.2017 Slip issued by the 2nd opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A6 21.05.2017 Memo issued by Thanushkumar Auto Stores for spares &service undertaken. Xerox

Ex.A7 21.05.2017 Cash bill issued by M/s. M.S.S. Motors, Chennai. Xerox

Ex.A8 03.07.2017 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party Xerox

Ex.A9 23.12.2017 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party Xerox

Ex.A10 08.01.2018 Reply sent by the 2nd opposite party Xerox

 

  Sd/-                                                                                                                    Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                     PRESIDENT