Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/231/2018

Mahaveer Shivaji - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Vishnu motors Plaza Pvt, Ltd. & others - Opp.Party(s)

V.Anandhan

16 Nov 2023

ORDER

                                                                     Complaint presented on : 15.10.2010

                                                                Date of disposal            : 17.11.2023

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.           : PRESIDENT

                                         TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,         : MEMBER-I

                                        

 

C.C. No.231/2018

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 17^TH   DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

                                

S.Mahaveer Shivaji,Advocate

S/o A.Sugantha Kumar

No.7C, Shankar Complex

Kalaimagal Nagar

Ekkaduthangal

Chennai-600 032.

                                                                                               …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1.The General Manager,

Vishnu Motors Plaza (p) Ltd.

No.31-A, N.P.J.Nehru Road

•  

Chennai-600 032.

 

2.The Regional Manager

Hero Honda Motors

18/1 (Old No.30/1)

3.  
4.  

Chennai-600 086…Opposite Parties

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.V.Anandhan

Counsel for  opposite parties                  : M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam and Associates

 

ORDER

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and Rule 5 of 1986 prays to directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- as compensation for the hardship, anxiety, mental agony, financial loss suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency of service rendered by the opposite parties and the opposite parties to return  complainant’s vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-09-S-0114 Hero Honda CBZ Green and pay the cost of the proceedings.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The  Complainant has owned a Two Wheeler Hero Honda CBZ Green and its Regn.no.TN-09-S-0114. The said two wheeler was handed over for entire service to the 2^nd opposite party on 11.04.2009 with Job Card No.43916. The 2^nd opposite party promised to deliver my vehicle with complete service with replacing all the engines parts within a period of one month. But the 2^nd opposite party delayed in several months after replacing all the engine parts with certain warranty On 13.10.2009 vide receipt No.3047/2009 the complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.18,958/- But the vehicle was delivered only on 15.10.2009. When the complainant asked about those replaced parts, they said that they were sold a month ago in a lot. Further the 2^nd opposite party advised the complainant to ride the vehicle for some days and bring back to us for further time up or any minor repairs at the free of cost as the vehicle was kept without dynamic motion for more than 6 months. The complainant state that the complainant again on 02.11.2009 i.e within a period of 15 days handed over any vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for oil leakages with certain noise to be arrested and no horn is functions etc vide Job Card No.11631 dated 02.11.2009 the 2^nd opposite party promised to deliver of the vehicle on the same day in the evening. But the 2^nd opposite party had failed in their promise and started to drag the issue. The complainant state that on 2^nd December 2009 further the complainant telephonically informed to the 2^nd opposite party about the attitudes and refusal to give vehicle by the 1^st opposite party. After this the 2^nd opposite party never turn to me or taken any steps till date. On 26.12.2009 the complainant had received a message from 1^st opposite party stating that “your vehicle Regn.No.TN-09-S-0114, 1^st service dated 06.11.2009 has reached to service due, please bring your vehicle for service “from 1^st opposite party and the same message again on 05.01.2010. Unfortunately the complainant vehicle is there with the 1^st opposite party since 02.11.2009 this clearly shows about the opposite parties lethargic and careless attitude towards the consumer/complainant. The complainant state that in view of the aforesaid reasons and negligence and deficiency of service on the parties of opposite parties the complainant is entitled to receive compensation as stated below including the value of the vehicle is total Rs.1,35,000/- Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite  parties states that the complainant has raised grievances pertaining to a Hero Honda CBZ 2000 model bearing Registration No.TN 09 S 0114 (Bike) It is an undisputed fact that the said vehicle is clearly beyond the warranty period and that the bike is around 10 years old. The opposite parties submit that the complainant had given his bike for servicing to the 1^st opposite party on 10.03.2009 vide job card no.43916. It was specifically brought to the information of the 1^st opposite party by the complainant that the vehicle had suffered extensive damage during the violence that broke out at the time of Advocates-police clash in the premises of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in February 2009. The complainant had stated to the service personnel of the 1^st opposite party that he had brought his motor bike for repairs consequent to the extensive damage suffered by the bike. The attending supervisor inspected the Bike and found that many parts were seriously damaged and that the engine also required inspection. After the Bike was handed over for servicing the 1^st opposite party carried out replacement of cylinder kit, crankshaft headlight and rear cowl. the 1^st opposite party also carried out fork and steering overhaul and chassis repairs. These works were completed by the end of April 2009. The full completion of repairs was communicated to the complainant and he was accordingly requested to take delivery of his bike. At the insistence of the complainant the bike was handed over to the complainant on credit basis the complainant himself promised and assured the 1^st opposite party that he would return the bike within two days. The opposite parties submit that in spite of the gesture of good will by extending credit to the complainant he did not return the bike within two days. Eventually the complainant brought the bike back in the 1^st week of June 2009 after unrestricted use of the bike. It was agreed between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party that the vehicle would be carried on a Tata Ace Mini Truck and the works Manager of the 1^st opposite party would travel along with the complainant in an accompanying Tata Sumo Car. The vehicle was inspected by the said persons at the Hon’ble madras high court’s premises and due details were given by the works manager of the 1^st opposite party as to the parts which were damaged in the violence and the repairs which were carried out by the 1^st opposite party. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had still not made any payment for the repairs carried out on the vehicle. In reply to the complainant’s request for an estimate the 1^st opposite party gave an estimate of Rs.21,000/- eventually at the request of the complainant a credit bill for Rs.18,985/- (Bill No.RUS 524 dated 14.07.2009) was issued. Unfortunately and in spite of the fact that the complainant had received the benefits of extensive repairs on credit basis for over four months at the cost of the opposite parties hereto and receiving the good will of the 1^st opposite party he failed to make payment even for the latest Invoice dated 14.07.2009. After an unjustifiable delay of three months the complainant paid the amount of Rs.18,985/- on 13.10.2009 to the 1^st opposite party. It is apparent that the payment was extremely delayed. To ensure that the bike was in good and safe working condition and in the interest of abundant caution the 1^st opposite party did a complete recheck (minor checks pertaining battery charging routine greasing etc) and handed over the bike to the complainant on 15.10.2009. The Complainant then again returned the bike on 31.10.2009 to the 1^st opposite party’s service station. The following works were carried out in response to his request 1) Crank case was welded to prevent oil leakage 2) Battery charging was done to make the Horn effective 3)Engine oil level was topped up to reduce the noise level. But he demanded that the repairs be treated as free if cost. However the 1^st opposite party could not entertain such a request as the bike was not under warranty. Since the said date i.e 02.11.2009 the complainant has abandoned his vehicle and is insisting that the opposite party should carry out the repairs free of cost. After this the complainant registered a complaint with the 2^nd opposite party. In reply to this complainant registered a compliant with the 2^nd opposite party in reply to this complaint it was clearly explained by the senior territory manager-service of the 2^nd opposite party that the bike was not under warranty and repairs if any will be done on chargeable basis only. It is evident from the facts that the complainant has concealed the fact that the bike suffered damage during the advocate police clash in February 2009 the complainant himself abandoned as bike when the opposite parties requested for charges for the repairs and hence the delay was only due to complainant in making payment and from the year 2003 he had no grievance against 1^st opposite party regarding the service and mere occurrence of problem in a old vehicle cannot be contended as deficiency in service and the complainant is free to take his bike by paying necessary charges and denied deficiency in service.

3.  POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

  

 The Complainant filed proof affidavit, written argument and Ex.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of complainant. Opposite parties has filed written argument , proof affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B10.

4. POINT NO :1

The fact that the complainant has owned a Two Wheeler Hero Honda CBZ Green and its Regn.no.TN-09-S-0114. The said two wheeler was handed over for entire service to the 2^nd opposite party on 11.04.2009 with Job Card No.43916 and further fact that the said vehicle was extensively damaged and which required replacement of certain engine parts by the 2^nd opposite party by obtaining the necessary spares from the 1^st opposite party is not in dispute between the parties. But according to the complainant the said two wheeler was handed over on 11.04.2009 to the 2^nd opposite party with job card no.43916 and it was promised to repair the vehicle within one month but the 2^nd opposite party delayed the delivery of the vehicle for about 6 months and handed over only on 15.10.2009 and the 2^nd opposite party failed to hand over all the replaced parts to the customer but sold it and further contended that the delay was caused due to non supply of new spares by the 1^st opposite party and within 15 days from the date of delivery again the vehicle was handed over to the 2^nd opposite party on 02.11.2009 with job card number 11631 in respect of noise in the engine and oil leakage and there after it is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle was not deliver to the complainant till this state and further stated that he received a message on 26.12.2009 to bring the vehicle for service which shows the lethargic attitude of the opposite party since the vehicle was already handed over to them and hence prayed for compensation for delay and financial loss and deficiency in service and for return of the two wheeler.

But on the other hand the opposite party contended that the said two wheeler was purchased around july 2000 and the bike is around 10 years old when it was brought for service to the 1^st opposite parties on 10.03.2009 and further contended that the complainant suppressed that the vehicle suffered expensive damage during the violence between advocates and police clash in the madras high court premises in February 2009 and since it is a old model it was difficult to get spare parts and the 1^st opposite party carried out replacement of cylinder kit, crank shaft head light etc and also chassis repairs and the work were completed by april end which was communicated to the complainant but the complainant took delivery on credit basis without paying for repairs but did not return the bike within 2 days as promised and he travelled extensively and brought back the bike in June 2009 and further stated and further requested for estimate for repairs done and a credit bill for Rs.18985 was issued on 14.07.2009 but he paid the amount only on 13.10.2009 after much delay and the vehicle again handed over to the complainant after rechecking on 15.10.2009  but on 31.10.2009 the bike again return to 1^st opposite party with engine oil leakage and engine noise problem and the complainant was informed that the repairs will be carried out the due payment of cost and the bike was abandoned by the complainant from 02.11.2009 since he insisted repairs free of cost  and further contended the delay is only due to complainants delayed payment and further stated that all the replaced parts were hand over the complainant and denied deficiency in service.

It is found from Ex.B6 that the credit bill for Rs.18958 was given by the 1^st opposite party for various repair works effected on 14.07.2009 and the said amount was paid by the complainant under Ex.A1 only on 13.10.2009 after 3 months delay which due to the fault of the complainant. It is found from Ex.B5 that the vehicle was handed over to the 1^st opposite party with engine noise and oil leakage and other problems with job card.no.43916 and as per the averment in the written version the complainant has taken the vehicle at the end april 2009 promising to return the vehicle in 2 days on credit basis but brought the bike only in June 2009 after extensive use and thereby causing damage to the vehicle which is again a fault upon the complainant for which the opposite party cannot be held liable this fact of taking delivery of the vehicle at the end of april 2009 and returning the same in june 2009 is not denied by the complainant. It is found from Ex.A2 that the vehicle was again hand over to the 1^st opposite party after replacement of battery for certain repairs on 02.11.2009 with job card no.11631 and admittedly the vehicle is still with opposite parties and according to Ex.A5 rejoinder notice by the 1^st opposite party the vehicle was not taken back by the complainant for want of payment of Rs.2000 for effecting certain repairs and it seems that the complainant requested to deliver the vehicle free of cost which was denied by the opposite party since the warranty period was already over and hence the claim of the opposite party to pay cost of the repairs is found to be a lawful one which will not amount to deficiency in service. It is  found from Ex.A3 that on 02.12.2009 the complainant made certain entries in the complaint register of the 2^nd opposite party against its supervisor stating that he has threatened him and he will not take his vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party and further stated that he is not satisfied with the job done by the 2^nd opposite party and further it is found that the vehicle is lying with the opposite parties from 02.11.2009 for want of payment of cost incurred by the opposite party towards replacement of certain parts in the engine which fact was also suppressed by the complainant. Further on perusal of the records it is founded the complainant has filed CMP 257 and 258 of 2011 for a direction to send the vehicle to the Department of Automobile
Engineering M.I.T Campus anna university for getting expert opinion in respect of the vehicle which was allowed by this commission and based on which as found from the letter received from the head of the department of MIT Anna university it is found that the vehicle was received on 06.06.2012 for inspection but there after there was no report submitted by the expert regarding the condition of the vehicle and no report was received till this date by this commission and hence the damages and the condition of the said vehicle in the year 2011 and 2012 is not able to be ascertained  by this commission.

          It is found from the Service history of the vehicle which is marked as Ex.B10 that in January 2009 itself the vehicle crossed 74999kms and the said vehicle which was of the model 2000 and at the time of handing over for repair the vehicle as completed 10 years and now after filing of the complaint 13 lapsed now and hence the present age of the vehicle will be 23 years and naturally any repair will not bring the said vehicle in a road worthy condition and further already the registration period prescribed by the government was over and hence though the complainant seeks for return of the disputed vehicle to him since there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the delay in delivery of the vehicle after repair by the opposite parties is due to the act of the complainant in taking the vehicle on credit basis without paying the estimated bill amount and paying the said amount after a period of 4 months and hence the complainant is not entitled to alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for the alleged delay in delivering the vehicle. But on the other hand on perusal of entire records it is founded the opposite parties has taken much effort to get the new spares for a old model vehicle which took considerable time and as replaced many engine parts and also effected repairs promptly but the complainant wanted such repairs and replacement to be done free of cost which attributed to the delay in taking delivery of the vehicle from the opposite parties and further it is found that the complainant is the cause for such delay and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties therefore the complainant cannot seek for value of the vehicle and for compensation towards mental agony and hardship. Further the complainant suppressed the fact about the extensive damage caused to the bike in the advocates-police clash in the premises of madras high court in feb 2009 and also the bringing of the bike by the 1^st opposite party to the madras high court for inspection by the investigating officer which amounts to suppressed of material fact and hence it is found that the complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands. It seems that there was some exchange of words between the complainant and supervisor of the 2^nd opposite party which has also paved way for delay in delivery of vehicle. The complainant failed to establish the negligence and deficiency service on the part of opposite parties. Point no.1 is answered according

5.POINT.NO.2

Based on findings given to point.no.1 since complainant failed to prove the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties hence the complainant is not entitled for compensation of Rs.1,35000/- for deficiency in service and mental agony as claimed in a complaint. But at the same time since the vehicle is not taken delivery from the opposite parties from the year 2009 and considering the age of the vehicle being 23 years old no useful purpose will be served in returning the vehicle in road worthy condition at this stage and hence in the interest of natural justice the opposite parties are directed to return the disputed vehicle in its present condition to the complainant. Point no.2 is answered accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed with a direction to the opposite parties to return the disputed vehicle to the complainant in its present condition  . No cost

          Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 17^th day of  November 2023

 

MEMBER – I                                             PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	13.10.2009	Receipt no 3047 amount of 18.958
Ex.A2	02.11.2009	Job card no 11631 issued by the 1s opposite party
Ex.A3	02.12.2009	Hero Honda complaint register
Ex.A4	13.01.2010	Legal notice to 1st and 2nd opposite parties
Ex.A5	02.02.2010	Reply notice from 2nd opposite parties

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

Ex.B1	29.09.2007	Paid Service Bill
Ex.B2	14.10.2008	Paid Service Bill
Ex.B3	19.01.2009	Paid Service Bill
Ex.B4	22.01.2009	Paid Service Bill
Ex.B5	10.03.2009	Job Card
Ex.B6	14.07.2009	Paid Service Bill
Ex.B7	31.10.2009	Job card
Ex.B8	13.01.2010	Notice from complainant
Ex.B9	02.08.2010	Reply to complainant’s Notice
Ex.B10		Service History Card

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                            PRESIDENT

 

CC.NO.231/2018, Dated:17.11.20203   Order Pronounced, In the result the complaint is dismissed with a direction to the opposite parties to return the disputed vehicle to the complainant in its present condition  . No cost   Member-I            President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC.NO.110/2019, Dated:06.11.20203

Order Pronounced,

                   In the result the complaint is partly allowed, The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant towards mental agony and loss sustained by the complainant. Further the opposite party is directed to remove the name of the complainant from the CIBIL records with adverse reference pertaining to the amount of Rs.8802.48/- within two months and also pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) towards the cost of the complaint. The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.