BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.76/2014

Dated this the  10^th  day of December 2015.

Ameena, wife of Abdul Wahab               

No.4, New Street,       

Koundanpalayam,                 

Oulgaret,                  

Puducherry.

                                                            ….       Complainant

Vs.

The Manager       

Manakular Motors Pvt. Ltd.,   

Authorised Dealers of Tata Motors and Fiat

Puducherry

                                    .                                              ….     Opposite Party

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT                      :  S.K. Sivasankaran, Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:          :  Exparte

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- along with Brand New Car as compensation for the pain and mental agony, to and fro expenses suffered by the complainant.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant purchased a Tata Sumo Grande Dicor GX Colour DEW White, Diesel Engine Car from the Opposite party, vide Registration No. PY 01 BQ 8227, Engine No.2.2LDICOR10NYYJ23571, Chassis No. MAD465015B9N33953, under a loan agreement with AXIS Bank, Puducherry for a sum of Rs.10,41,741/- (on road).  That from the date of purchase, the vehicle has poor mileage and it runs only 4 kms per litre, brake failure, vibration even at 40 kms. Speed.  In the free service also, the Opposite Party did not make any service particularly in the aspect mentioned above.  On 21.08.2013 the complainant again handed over the vehicle for repair of the same defects.  At the time of handing over the vehicle, the meter reading was 41882 kms.  The Opposite Party used the vehicle without the knowledge of the complainant for their own purpose by carrying goods by removing the back seats by using welding machine and now the meter reading is noted as 43005 kms.  The window glass of the vehicle also got damaged and the outside body of the car is fully scratched.   During the period of five months, the insurance policy of the car is also lapsed and knowing fully well about the period of insurance, the opposite party is using the vehicle on road without insurance policy.  The complainant had come forward to sale out the vehicle through the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not taken any steps either to rectify the defects or sale the vehicle.  The Opposite Party quoted the amount for resale of the vehicle as Rs.3,50,000/- which will incur heavy loss to the complainant.  Hence., this complaint.  

3.         The opposite party remained absent and was set exparte.

4.         On the side of the complainant, he has chosen to examine herself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C6 and Ex.C8. On the side of complainant one Sundar, Mechanic was examined and Ex.C7 was marked through him.

5.         Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the opposite party attributed deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.  Point No.1:

            The complainant purchased one Tata Sumo Gande Dicor GX Colour DEW White, Diesel Engine Car from the Opposite party, vide Registration No. PY 01 BQ 8227, Engine No.2.2LDICOR10NYYJ23571, Chassis No. MAD465015B9N33953, under a loan agreement with AXIS Bank, Puducherry on 14.03.2012 vide Ex.C8.  Hence, the complainant is the consumer.

7.         Point No.2:

            The complainant was examined as CW1 and marked Exs.C1 to C6 and Ex.C8.  The Opposite Party was duly served, but called absent and set ex parte.  The complainant submits that she has purchased one Tata Sumo Grande Dicor GX Colour DEW White, Diesel Engine Car from the Opposite party, vide Registration No. PY 01 BQ 8227, Engine No.2.2LDICOR10NYYJ23571, Chassis No. MAD465015B9N33953, hypothecated to AXIS Bank, Puducherry on 14.03.2012 vide Ex.C8.  The complainant further submitted that from the date of purchase, the vehicle was of poor mileage and gets vibration even on 40 kms. Speed.  It is alleged by the complainant that in the free service, the Opposite Party did not make any service in the above aspects and hence, on 21.8.2013, the complainant handed over the vehicle for necessary rectification of the above mentioned defects and noted the meter reading as 41882 kms.  Instead of rectifying the defects, the opposite party used the vehicle for their own use by carrying goods after removing the back seats and the meter reading was 43005 kms.  It is further alleged by the complainant that the outer body of the vehicle also completely scratched and the insurance for the vehicle also lapsed and the opposite party is using the vehicle without valid insurance.  The complainant also stated that she wanted to sell out the vehicle through Opposite Party for which the same was estimated by the Opposite Party as Rs.3,50,000/- which incur heavy loss to her.  Hence, the complainant came to this Forum with this complaint.

8.         From the above facts and evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear from Ex.C1 the Certificate of Registration and Ex. C8 the Tax Invoice that the complaint's alleged vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the Opposite Party on 14.03.2012 with the financial help of Axis Bank.   Further, on perusal of Exs.C3 and C5, the copy of Job Sheets issued by the Opposite Party, it is found that the said vehicle got poor mileage, insufficient brake, vehicle vibration at 40 kms. Speed and damage to the glass windows.  Instead of rectifying the defects, the opposite Party utilized the vehicle for their business purpose for carrying goods by removing the back seat which could be seen through Ex.C6 series photographs.   When the complainant wanted to sell out the vehicle through Opposite Party, it was estimated as Rs.3,50,000/- vide Ex.C4.  Further, on perusal of Ex.C2, it is found that the insurance for the vehicle to be renewed before 15.03.2014 and due to the vehicle lying with the Opposite Party, she could not renew the vehicle.  Further, the opposite Party is using the vehicle for their business purpose without renewal of the insurance policy.  From the above, this Forum found that  the purpose for which the vehicle was purchased by the complainant was not served.  But, it gave mental agony, loss and injuries.  It is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle which was given to the opposite party to carry out repair work, it was only with the  Opposite party and not returned back to the complainant after carrying out necessary repairs. 

9.         In order to strengthen the case, the complainant examined one Sundar as CW2 who is a  Car Mechanic and through him Ex.C7 the rough estimate to rectify the defects in the vehicle has been marked.  On perusal of Ex.C7, the vehicle would involve a sum of Rs.8,83,000/- to rectify the defects which is almost the cost of a new vehicle.  Moreover, the Opposite Party, though received summons from this Forum, not come forward to put forth their contentions.  The complainant clearly established the case and hence, this forum has come to the conclusion that the Complainant has proved the negligent act and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party.  Thus, the complainant is entitled for the claim and the Opposite Party is liable for their negligent Act leading to deficiency in service.  Since the complaint's alleged vehicle is with the hands of the Opposite Party, they are liable to keep the defective vehicle by themselves and to replace a new car to the complainant. 

10.       Point No.3:

            In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to 

1. Replace a new car of the same make and brand to the complainant and to keep the defective vehicle with them. 
2. Pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-  as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

The above said order should be complied within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

Dated this the 10^th day of December 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  

CW.1              11.02.2015                Tmt. Ameena     

CW.2              13.08.2015                Sundar             

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS: Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

     MEMBER