By Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to get refund of the amount collected by the Opposite Party which is in violation of the terms and conditions offered in the service manual.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The Complainant is offered two free service for two years for his vehicle bearing registeration No.KL 12E 5288 NANO CAR by the Opposite Parties.
3. But when the Complainant availed the service from Opposite Parties on 24.05.2011 and 17.06.2011 the Opposite Parties were collected Rs.1,198/- and Rs.769/-
respectively for engine oil, break oil, filter and for ball joint etc and replaced the left side ball joint instead of right side ball joint and further says that due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties he lost Rs.4,967/- altogether and prayed for a relief of Rs.9,967/- including the cost and compensation.
4. The complaint filed on 01.01.2013 and notice were served to Opposite parties and Opposite Parties filed version on 19.04.2013 denying all the allegations and stated that the complainant suppressed the material facts regarding the annual maintenance contract and submitted false allegations and averments, and stated that the Complainant not produced the annual maintenance contract for availing free service. There was no negligence on the part of these Opposite Parties and absolutely there is no unfair trade practice. The allegation regarding the repair in ball jointer is fabricated for the purpose of litigation and the Opposite Parties replaced ball jointer as and when required by the complainant and charged for the repair as it is on paid basis and denied that the averment of postponement of replace of ball joint is due to the shortage in stock is false and astonishing and further says that there is no deficiency of service and prayed for dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost of this Opposite Parties.
5. On considering the complaint, version, affidavit, document, deposition, argument note and argument the following points are to be considered.
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2. Relief and cost.
6. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed chief affidavit in addition to the Complainant and stated as stated in the complaint and Exts.A1 to A6 is marked. Ext.A1 is the value care silver annual maintenance contract letter from Tata motors which bears that in second and third Paragraph “ A value care Silver Annual Maintenance Contract will be offered on a Free of Cost basis to you for 2 year/ 2 services. The period will be 1st August 2010 to 31st July 2012 and the connotation of 2 services is two oil change services (including labour, oils & filters etc) at 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 Kms as the case may be. (eg. If your have already availed 10,000 km service you will be entitled to 20000 & 30000 km services subject to the service due by 31st July 2012)” which shows there is free service for the vehicle within two years for labour charge, oils and filters etc.
7. Ext.A2 is the value care silver annual maintenance contract book let from Marina Motors Calicut. Which also show the free service for the above said services. Ext.A3 is the Job slip and Ext.A4 is the bill prepared by the opposite party which shows that the vehicle brought to Opposite Parties for free service at 10438 km on 24.05.2011 and it also shows that service book is provided which is marked in the specified column for each service and also shows that the Opposite Party charged Rs.1,198/- for Bardahl special injector klene petrol and Engin oil and Assy. Oil filter, Fuel Filter, Break oil SDBF etc. and Exts.A5 and A6 is the 2nd Job card and respective bill, which shows that the complainant approached the Opposite Party for service on 17.06.2011 at 11273 km and Opposite Party charged the bill amount also.
8. On the defence of Opposite Party that the Complainant not produce the annual maintenance contract card, we found that in both job card it can be seen that the service book produced which is marked in the specific column and seen that the Opposite party charged for labour, oil, break oil etc. it is against the condition mentioned in Exts.A1 and A2. Hence we are in the opinion that there is clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite Parties. The point No.1 is found accordingly.
9. Point No.2:- On the above findings the Complainant is entitled to get refund of the charged bill for the free offered service that is Rs.1,198/- and cost of Rs.1,000/- for the transportation of the vehicle to Calicut for a second time for the replace of the ball jointer and also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation. The point No.2 is found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Parties are directed to refund the bill amount of Rs.1,198 + Rs. 1,000 for cost of transportation of the vehicle in second time, with 8% interest from 24.05.2011 and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as cost and compensation to the Complainant. The order must be complied by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the CA, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of October 2013.
Date of filing:01.01.2013.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER: Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Mohandas Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Das Service Manager, Marina Motors, Kalpetta.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Value care silver annual maintenance conatract letter.
A2. Value care silver annual maintenance contract booklet.
A3. Job Slip. dt:24.05.2011.
A4. Proforma Invoice.
A5. Job Slip. dt:17.06.2011.
A6. Tax Invoice dt:18.06.2011.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
