Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/40/2014

K. Gangi Reddy, S/o. K. Pakkira reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manage, Sri Sai Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Gudi. Venu gopal

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:14.08.2014

Order Date: 24.02.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

TUESDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

C.C.No.40/2014

 

Between

 

K.Gangi Reddy,

S/o. K.Pakkira Reddy,

Sri Latha Nims Medicals Manager,

D.No.4-6-50, 1^st Floor,

Reservoir Colony,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         The Manager,

            Sri Sai Motors,

            D.No.11-28, Renigunta Road,

            Tirupati.

 

2.         The Manager,

            Sri Sai Motors,

            D.No.22-251, Kattamanchi,

            Chittoor.                                                                                …  Opposite parties.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 09.02.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Venugopal, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.V.Lokanadha Reddy, counsel for the opposite parties, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Sections-12 & 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite parties for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.36,000/- towards compensation for the delay in delivering the vehicle to the complainant after repairs and service 2) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony caused to the complainant by the opposite parties and 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.

            2.  The brief averments in the complaint are:- That the complainant is the owner of Royal Enfield two wheeler bearing registration No.AP-03-AK-22 and its model is TBTS 350. That on 20.06.2013 complainant gave his motorcycle to the service centre of opposite parties 1 and 2 at Tirupati for repairs and service. The opposite parties issued job card bearing No.1851, estimated the cost of repairs and service and gave letter on 27.06.2013 asking the complainant to receive the vehicle after 10 days. When the complainant approached the opposite parties on 08.07.2013, again he was asked to come after 10 days on the ground that some of the repairs are yet to be carried out. Thus the opposite parties have taken time up to 11.10.2013 and on 11.10.2013 they have raised an invoice for a sum of Rs.20,932/- and collected on the same day even before checking the condition of the vehicle. On making payment of Rs.20,932/-, the mechanic of the opposite parties brought the vehicle, started the vehicle and when the gear is changed, the vehicle jumped ahead and stopped there itself. Again the vehicle was taken back asking the complainant to come after one week. The complainant endorsed on the backside of the job card that the problem is not solved.

            3.  Again on 11.12.2013, he received a call from opposite parties asking the complainant to receive the vehicle. The complainant went to opposite parties for taking delivery of the vehicle. The opposite parties demanded Rs.900/- towards parking fee and ultimately collected Rs.500/- towards parking fee and endorsed the same on the backside of the invoice instead of passing a receipt for the amount paid by the complainant. Though the opposite parties are the dealers of Royal Enfield, they have not make good the defect and caused deficiency in offering services. Hence the complaint.

            4. The opposite party No.1 filed their written version and the same was adopted by opposite party No.2. The opposite parties admitted that they are the authorized dealers of Royal Enfield having branch offices at the given addresses and offering services to the Royal Enfield two wheelers. The opposite parties have admitted the ownership of the complainant over the Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AK-22, handing over the said vehicle to the opposite parties on 20.06.2013 for repairs and service, issuing invoice on 29.06.2013, opposite parties informed the complainant through phone call on 11.10.2013 that the vehicle was ready for delivery and also admitted the payment of Rs.20,932/- by the complainant. Rest of the complaint allegations are denied.

            5.  The opposite parties contended that the Royal Enfield two wheeler of the complainant was met with accident and it was badly damaged, in such condition it was brought to the opposite parties for repairs. On 11.10.2013 the complainant wants to change some more parts of the vehicle other than the parts shown in the job card. Therefore, the vehicle was retained with the opposite parties. The opposite parties further stated that they have collected the parking fee of Rs.500/- as against Rs.900/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            6.  Both the complainant and opposite parties have filed their respective chief affidavits and written arguments. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

            7.  Now the points that arise for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AK-

       22 handed over to the opposite parties for getting repairs when the vehicle

       met with an accident and in badly damaged condition as contended by the

       opposite parties? And whether there is deficiency in service on the part of

       the opposite parties?     

(ii). Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

(iii). To what relief?

8. Point No.(i):- In order to answer this point, it is for the complainant to say that the vehicle was handed over to the opposite parties for getting general repairs and service or the vehicle was handed over to the opposite parties for repairs and replacement of parts of the vehicle since it met with an accident. The complainant nowhere in the complaint stated as to when the vehicle was purchased by him so as to assess the condition of the vehicle and repairs required basing on the period of usage of the vehicle and its condition as on the date it was handed over to the opposite parties. Though the opposite parties have mentioned in Ex.B1 job card at 4^th column, the tick mark was given under the column mentioned “Accident” and also the opposite parties have taken a plea in their written version as well as in their chief affidavit and written arguments that the Royal Enfield vehicle bearing No.AP-03-AK-22 was brought to the opposite parties for repairs and service when the vehicle was met with an accident and badly damaged. This plea was not denied by the complainant even in his chief affidavit filed on 07.01.2015 and also written arguments filed subsequent thereto. Therefore, it can be presumed that the vehicle was met with accident and as such various parts of the vehicle are required to be changed / replaced as contended by the opposite parties.

9.  As could be seen from the complaint at paragraph No.3, job card was issued to the complainant but for the reasons best known to the complainant it was not filed in the Forum. Except invoice under Ex.A1 dt:11.10.2013 and estimation under Ex.A2 dt:27.06.2013, no other relevant documents were filed in support of the claim. The other 2 documents Ex.A3 is the legal notice dt:16.12.2013 and Ex.A4 is the postal acknowledgement card. When the vehicle was taken delivery by the complainant on 11.12.2013 after paying the repair charges of Rs.20,032/- and parking charges of Rs.500/- satisfying himself with the service rendered by the opposite parties, what are the circumstances that compelled the complainant to issue notice under Ex.A3?. Ex.B1 is the job card dt:20.06.2013, according to which the number of parts that were replaced by the opposite parties for the two wheeler of the complainant.

10.  The opposite parties also specifically contending that the complainant wants to change some more parts other than the parts covered under the job card. He was asked the opposite parties to complete the same by making endorsement. Therefore, the opposite parties have retained the vehicle with them. This contention of opposite parties was also not denied by the complainant. The other contention of the opposite parties at para.10 of the written version that “within one week from 11.12.2013 this opposite party made the vehicle ready as per his wish and asked the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle, but the complainant did not turn up. After several reminders and phone calls, the complainant came to this opposite party at lost on 11.12.2013, i.e. after a lapse of 2 months therefore this opposite party asked the complainant to pay parking charges” bears no truth because when the vehicle was made ready within one week from 11.12.2013 i.e. about one week after 11.12.2013, the question of taking delivery of the vehicle on 11.12.2013 itself does not arise. Therefore, this version appears to be incorrect. Since the complainant is not disclosing the actual facts such as whether the vehicle was given to opposite parties for getting repairs after the vehicle was met with an accident or whether the repairs and service is required on the vehicle periodically / generally. If it is only for general repairs and service, there is no need to change various parts of the vehicle including some major parts such as steering stem assembly, handle bar, head lamp assembly and there may not be any scratches on the oil tank as mentioned in the job card. Though 26 parts were listed in job card for replacement and on the other slip attached to job card, there are some more parts which were proposed to be replaced (the hand writing of the opposite parties in the job card are illegible / difficult to understand). Apart from the above mentioned parts, some more important parts that were changed are, Gasket, switch and battery. Therefore, it seems the version taken by the opposite parties to the effect that the damaged vehicle in accident was brought to them for repairs and service is appears to be believable as it is not denied by the complainant. Since the written arguments filed on behalf of the opposite parties were part and parcel of the record, they need not be discussed in detail. Accordingly this point is answered.

11. Point No.(ii):- to answer this point, it is pertinent to say that even the Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-AK-22 was met with an accident and brought to the opposite parties for getting the vehicle for repairs and for service. The opposite parties 1 and 2 being the authorized dealers for the Royal Enfield company, admittedly for repairing the vehicle in question and for service they are not supposed to retain the vehicle for more than 5 months. When the vehicle is brought to them for the specific purpose of repairing and service and when the opposite parties have given 10 days time at the initial stage and another 10 days time subsequently and another one week time they are expected to deliver back the vehicle after carrying out repairs and service within the time they have given or atleast within one month or 45 days but totally they have consumed 5 months 21 days and caused some inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant. That apart when the vehicle was handed over to the opposite parties for carrying out repairs and service, they are not supposed to charge parking fee. Therefore, it is apparent that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for deficiency in service and refund the parking fee to the complainant. Accordingly this point is answered.

12. Point No.(iii):-  In view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the delay in carrying out repairs and service and also for causing mental agony. The complainant is also entitled to refund of Rs.500/- which was collected by the opposite parties towards parking fee and the complainant is also entitled to the litigation expenses. Accordingly the complaint is to be allowed in part.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties         1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for the deficiency in service and for the delay in delivering the vehicle after repair and service. The opposite parties 1 and 2 further directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) which was collected towards parking fee, to the complainant and they are also further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

Thus the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay a total sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) to the complainant within six (6) weeks form the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which Rs.5,500/- will carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization.             

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 24^th day of February, 2015.   

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                           

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

 

 PW-1: K.Gangi Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-1: M.Gnanadeep   (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	Original Invoice, Dt: 11.10.2013.
2.	Estimation in Original, Dt: 27.06.2013.
3.	Legal notice Dt: 16.12.2013 along with postal receipts.
4.	Acknowledgement of Opposite Party No.2.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	Job card issued by our Motors containing the signature of the Complainant. Job card No.1851. Dt: 20.06.2013
2.	Invoice (Computer generated Slip) issued by our Motors to the Complainant. Dt: 11.10.2013.

 

                                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-          

                                                                                                                President

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                 Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite parties.