Complaint filed on: 05.04.2016
Complaint Disposed on:05.01.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.47/2016
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JANUARY 2018
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT/S:
Sri H.J.Surjith,
S/o Late Jayarame Gowda,
Aged about 48 years,
“Anugraha” Kalyanagar,
Jyothinagar Post,
Chikmagalur.
(By Sri/Smt. H.N.Mahesh, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT/S:
The Manager,
Cauvery Ford,
Showroom & Service
Centre, Cauvery Motors
Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.A-49/50,
Industrial Estate, Hebbal,
Mysore-570016.
(Op By Sri.Hareesh Singatagere, advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Op alleging unfair trade practice in collecting Rs.25,847/- towards unnecessary repair charges. Hence, prays for direction against Op to reimburse the said amount along with Rs.3,000/- towards fuel expenses, Rs.3,115/- towards the bill dated:29.01.2016 and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for unfair trade practice/deficiency in service in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is a resident of Chikmagalur town and owns a vehicle Ford Fusion bearing registration No.KA-18-N-775. The Op is the authorized sales and service centre of Ford vehicle at Mysore. Since, there is no any authorized service station at Chikmagalur, the complainant regularly visiting the Op to service his vehicle. Accordingly, on 30.03.2015 he went to Op showroom for periodical maintenance and service was carried out and Rs.13,362/- was collected from complainant, complainant also paid the said amount. There afterwards, after couple of days complainant noticed that the vehicle got starting problem and took long ignition to get start the vehicle, immediately he complained the same to Op on next visit dated 22.08.2018, where the vehicle was underwent periodical maintenance service and Op had taken into same and charged Rs.4,331/- towards service. But with regard to the complaint about late start Op asked the complainant to get the vehicle after week as the required spare part is not within their custody and it has to be brought from main dealer, the Op collected advance of Rs.5,000/- for the spare parts from complainant.
Thereafter complainant on 29.08.2015 took the vehicle to Op as he received information that the spare part has arrived to Op, the Op had carried out the repair work and charged again Rs.14,413/-, complainant had paid the entire amount by deducting the advance amount paid earlier. After repair the starting problem was not rectified, the complainant has noticed no improvement even after the replacement of the spare part. Again complainant intimated the Op, in response Op had sent one of his mechanic to the complainant’s house on 09.09.2015 to take the vehicle to Mysore for repair. Accordingly, the Op attended the vehicle and changed one more spare part and delivered the vehicle to the complainant along with bill for Rs.11,434/-, the complainant also paid the said amount to the said authorized mechanic of the Op at Chikmagalur and received the vehicle.
The complainant further alleges that, even after repeated repairs conducted by Op the problem was not resolved and he is not satisfied with the repair conducted by Op. The problem was the same as before. Again complainant intimated the same over phone, for which Op again sent another representative on 22.09.2015 and took the vehicle within two days the vehicle was brought back to Chikmagalur, after repair the complainant enquired with the representative who carried out the repairs, for which he replied that there is a problem with fuel filter and not with the starter and the said fuel filter was rectified. The complainant has noticed that the Op without observing the fuel filter has provided maintenance/regular periodical service. After the said repair of the fuel filter the problem was cleared.
It is only on 18.01.2016 after the lapse of three months the Op had sent another bill for Rs.3,567/- to complainant through post, the complainant enquired for sending the said bill, for which they informed the fuel filter was rectified and for that attending the problem and they have charged for Rs.3,567/- and insisted to pay the said amount. Therefore, it is very clear that the Op have rendered unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in not noticing the said fuel filter problem during regular periodical services, instead of that they have charged unnecessarily for the spare part of one or other by charging Rs.14,413/- vide bill dated 29.08.2015 and again for Rs.11,434/- vide bill dated 16.09.2015. All together Op had charged unnecessarily Rs.25,847/- towards repair, instead of replacement of the fuel filter. Hence, complainant filed this complaint and prays for refund of the said amount.
Subsequently, complainant also issued legal notice dated 08.02.2016 and called upon the Op to refund the said amount for unfair trade practice, even inspite of receipt of the legal notice also Op failed to refund the said amount even not replied the legal notice. Hence, complainant filed this complaint and prays for direction against Op to repay the said amount along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for unfair trade practice and also payment of Rs.3,000/- towards fuel charges as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that, the complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction as Op is not residing or running a business within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The complainant had brought the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-18-N-775 to Op workshop for periodical servicing with several other complaints including complaint of late start on 22.08.2015. On inspection of it Op found that there was a leakage in plunger assembly and the same was causing the air to enter the fuel line, it resulted in late start. This Op carried out servicing and other repairs, however plunger assembly was not in stock, therefore they have directed the complainant to bring the vehicle to the workshop as and when the said spare had arrived. Meanwhile, Rs.4,331/- was paid towards servicing and other repair charges. Immediately after arrival of the plunger assembly this Op intimated the complainant and complainant brought the vehicle to Op workshop on 22.08.2015 and accordingly the plunger assembly was replaced with a new one and as on 22.08.2015 the car had plied up to 1,54,647 kms. After replacement of the said plunger assembly Rs.14,413/- was paid and vehicle was delivered to the complainant under full satisfaction.
Subsequently, on 09.09.2015 the complainant brought the vehicle with the same complaint of late start, at that time the vehicle had clocked 1,55,627 kms. On inspection of the vehicle Op found that there was a problem with fuel line and same was replaced with the consent. For which a sum of Rs.11,434/- was received towards repair and vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 16.09.2015.
Thereafter on 23.09.2015 the complainant again complained with late start and starter noise. The car was collected by this Op from complainant residence and brought to the workshop and on inspection Op found that starter motor had problem and required replacement with the consent of the complainant, the same was replaced and fuel filter was removed and installed back, the complainant intimated about the same. In view of the multiple problem cropping one by one, Op had not finalize the bill and kept open in order to verify the problem. After repair the vehicle was delivered to complainant on 30.09.2015 at his residence and was asked to inform the Op as to whether the problem of late start had been rectified or not. Further complainant never bothered to get back to this Op nor did he bother to pay the repair charges. Subsequently, Op contacted the complainant over the phone and remanded him to pay repair charges. Hence, they have issued pre-invoice for Rs.3,567/- on 18.01.2016 and also remand him to pay the said amount. Later, on verification Op found that due to oversight the Op did not add the labour charges for removing and installing fuel filter carried out on 23.09.2015. Hence, they have issued fresh invoice on 29.01.2016 adding in another Rs.144/- towards repair charges and demanded for payment of the said amount. The complainant had not paid the amount and given one or other reason for non-payment of the said amount.
Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this Op. They have carried out the repair only after complaint given by complainant. The said repairs were done with the consent of the complainant. The car being seven years old having clocked over 1,55,000 kms and due to wear and tear the problems with spares do crop up, which complainant ought to know and he cannot saddle on Op by alleging unfair trade practice. The warranty of the car was lapsed. Hence, they have charged towards repairs. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any amount claimed in the complaint. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. Op also filed affidavit and documents marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4.
5. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is a territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Whether there is a Deficiency in Service/Unfair Trade Practice on the part of Op?
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
6. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: Affirmative.
- Point No.3: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1, 2 & 3:
7. The first point raised by Op is that, there is no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the Op had no any branch nor residence within the jurisdiction of this Forum, the entire transaction took place at Mysore. Hence, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
On observation of the documents produced by both complainant and Op, on 09.09.2015 one of the mechanic of the Op side had visited the complainant’s house and inspected the vehicle, where he noticed there was a problem with starting of the car and subsequently, Op also send another mechanic for inspection of the vehicle. Hence, we found a part of transaction took place at the residence of the complainant. Hence, this Forum has a territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, the defence with respect to territorial jurisdiction is rejected and complaint is admitted and maintainable.
8. There is no dispute that, the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No.KA-18-N-776 had underwent so many repairs with respect to the complaint of late start given by complainant. We observed that at the first visit on 22.08.2015 itself the complainant had complained with respect to the late start, but Op instead of rectifying the said particular problem had unnecessarily made a plunger assembly replacement and other repairs and collected Rs.14,413/-. Subsequently on 09.09.2015 the complainant again given a complaint with respect to the late start, at that junction of time Op failed to diagnise the real problem with the late start and had collected Rs.11,434/- by replacing fuel line. The complainant being a innocent man had given consent with hope that the problem is going to be rectified, but we observed that the problem of late start was not resolved by Op even after two services and repairs an even after collecting Rs.14,413/- and Rs.11,434/- from complainant.
Subsequently, we noticed that on 22.09.2015 the complainant again brought the vehicle with a complaint of late start and starter noise, at that junction of time the Op had properly inspected and starter motor was replaced, for which he charged Rs.3,567/- and delivered the vehicle to the complainant. The said problem could have been noticed much earlier when the complainant brought at the first time. The Op have unnecessarily collected the repair charges from complainant without noticing the problem at first instance. Hence, it is a clear case of unfair trade practice on the part of Op in not rectifying the late start problem of the vehicle of the complainant at the first instance. We are of the opinion that Op intentionally has drag on the repair of the vehicle without noticing the real problem of the vehicle. Hence, Op is liable to refund the amount of Rs.14,413/-, which was collected on 29.08.2015 and Rs.11,434/-, which was collected on 16.09.2015 to the complainant. Anyhow, the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,567/- to Op for the replacement of the fuel filter and subsequent repair charges to Op. Further, we are of the opinion that Op is liable to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for unfair trade practice for unnecessarily collecting said amount towards unnecessary repairs of the vehicle along with Rs.1,000/- litigation expenses to the complainant. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above Point No.1, 2 and 3 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
- Op is directed to refund the amount of Rs.14,413/- and 11,434/- in total 25,847/- collected on 29.08.2015 and 09.09.2015 towards repairs of the vehicle of the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand Rupees) for unfair trade practice and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand Rupees) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
- The complainant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,732/- towards replacement of the fuel filter and other subsequent repair charges to Op.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 5th day of January 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H.MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - Tax invoice dtd:30.03.2015.
Ex.P.2 - Tax invoice dtd:22.08.2015.
Ex. P.3 - Cash receipt dtd:22.08.2015.
Ex. P.4 - Tax invoice dtd:29.08.2015.
Ex. P.5 - Letter dtd:09.09.2015.
Ex.P.6 - Tax invoice dtd:16.09.2015.
Ex.P.7 - Letter dtd:22.09.2015.
Ex.P.8 - Tax invoice dtd:18.01.2016.
Ex.P.9 - Tax invoice dtd:29.01.2016.
Ex.P.10 - Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.P.11 - Postal Ack. Due.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
Ex.R.1 - Repair order & tax invoice dtd:22.08.2015.
Ex.R.2 - Repair order & tax invoice dtd:29.08.2015.
Ex.R.3 - Repair order & tax invoice dtd:30.03.2015.
Ex.R.4 - Repair order & tax invoice dtd:13.04.2016.
Dated:05.01.2018 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
