DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 21st day of June 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 24/08/2011
(C.C.No.140/2011)
Ajith,
S/o.Ramachandran Nair,
Abhilash House,
Konikkazhi, Pulappetta,
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.K.R.Santhoshkumar)
V/s
Manager,
Seetharam Motors,
NH Bye Pass Road,
Chandranagar (PO),
Palakkad.
(By Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran) - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
The complainant is the owner in possession of Maruti Wagon R car manufactured by Maruti Udyog Ltd. bearing registration number KL-49-5193. On 29/11/2010 the complainant entrusted the vehicle at opposite party’s service center for maintenance and service. The vehicle was given to opposite party’s service center after a minor accident. The opposite party undertaken to return the car to the complainant after completing the maintenance and service within 20 days from the date of entrustment. On 20/12/10 the complainant came to opposite party’s service center and enquired about the repairing of car and paid Rs.20,000/- as advance payment for the demand of him. Thereafter the opposite party has not repaired and returned the car within 20 days. Then the complainant demanded the return of the repaired car through e mail. The opposite party has not returned the car. The complainant was constraint to take a car for his personal use on daily rent @Rs.600/- per day and due to the same he had to suffer heavy financial loss and he had to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards rent. On 17/01/2011 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party demanding Rs.80,000/- as compensation for car rent and mental agony. The opposite party had sent a reply stating false allegations. The opposite party has returned the vehicle to the complainant on 22/1/2011. The opposite party had changed spare parts which were not damaged as per the surveyor’s report and which were not required to be changed and that the complainant had to pay Rs.3327/- for changing spare parts.
The opposite party had changed the parts which were not damaged. The complainant stated that the spare parts not damaged were changed by the opposite party stated in the following schedule. Opposite party has unnecessarily replaced body parts or spare parts of the vehicle without the permission of the complainant and he had come to know about the unnecessary replacement of spare parts only on getting the explanation from the insurance company. The windshield replaced by the opposite party was damaged and the complainant had realized that there is some defect in the wind shield. The act of opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to
1. Pay Rs.83,327/- as compensation for car rent, mental agony and excess payments and
2. Replace the damaged windshield with the cost of opposite party and
3. Pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings.
Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. It is true that complainant is the owner in possession of Maruti Wagon R car manufactured by Maruti Udyog Ltd. bearing registration No.KL-49-5193. It is not correct to say that the vehicle was entrusted at opposite party’s service centre for maintenance and service. The vehicle was totally damaged in an accident and based on the request made by the complainant, the service personnel went to the site of accident and the vehicle was towed from the accident site to the opposite party’s service centre using towing vehicle of the opposite party.
Complainant’s car was totally damaged in an accident and the repairs included changing major body parts as well as spare parts and body works including painting and it was specifically informed to him that the proposed work is time consuming one and the completion of work would depend upon availability of body parts and spare parts to be obtained from Gurgauon.
It is true that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as advance payment towards the labour charges and cost of spare parts on 20/12/2010. It is denied that the complainant was constraint to take a car for his personal use on daily rent @Rs.600/- per day and due to the same he had to suffer heavy financial loss and he had to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards rent. The complainant had sent a lawyer notice and the opposite party had sent a reply stating true facts. There is neither violation of service condition nor deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The opposite party had not changed any parts which were not damaged. Though the complainant refers to a schedule in the 4th para of the complaint regarding the description of body parts so changed, no such schedule is seen annexed to the copy of complaint served to the opposite party. Opposite party has not unnecessarily replaced any body parts or spare parts and they had replaced only damaged body parts and had carried out only necessary works in the complainant’s vehicle. The opposite party is not liable to pay Rs.3327/-.
The vehicle was delivered to the complainant in good condition on 22/1/11 and the complainant had signed the delivery note. The work carried out by the opposite party is having warranty and if the complainant is having any doubt regarding the work, the same can be verified by an expert at the cost of complainant. The complaint is amended for the purpose of incorporating new monetary claims against the opposite party alleging defect in the wind shield which is having no defect at all. The opposite party is not liable to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.83,327/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost. Hence the opposite party prayed that dismiss the compliant with cost.
Both parties filed affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A8 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B3 marked on the side of the opposite party. The commission report marked as Ext.C1. Matter heard. Complainant filed argument notes.
Issues to be considered are
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issue No.1 & 2
Heard both parties and perused relevant documents on record. In Ext.C1 report the Commissioner stated that (1) rainbow colour pattern is seen on the bottom half of the glass (2) The vision through the glass is diffused even in day light. The above are due to manufacturing defects of the glass and it is not advisable to drive the vehicle with this wind shield glass. In Ext.A3, A4 and A5 the complainant stated that the date of accident 27/11/2010 and delivered the car to opposite party on 29/11/2010. The opposite party has not raised objection to marking of Ext.A3, A4 and A5. So we considered that the complainant delivered the car to opposite party on 29/11/2010. In Ext.B3 the copy of satisfaction note shows that after completion of work and taking delivery of the vehicle today i.e. 22/1/2011. So the opposite party has repaired the vehicle and delivered to the complainant after 54 days. According to the opposite party the completion of work would depend upon availability of body parts and spare parts to be obtained from Gurgauon. The opposite party has not produced evidence to show that the body parts and spare parts obtained from Gurgauon. The opposite party filed objection to Commission Report stating that Commissioner not carry out any test of the wind shield for ascertaining its quality and based only on assumption. Hence the report cannot be considered for arriving at a conclusion regarding the quality of the wind shield. But the opposite party has not taken steps to examine the Commissioner to clarify the assumption.
Ext.A6 is the copy of letter sent by the opposite party stating that the surveyor given a letter dated 6/6/11 the contents of which are self explanatory. The opposite party argued that if any defect is there in the glass the same must be replaced by the glass manufacturer. No documentary evidence was produced by the complainant to show that the opposite party has received Rs.3,327/- for spare parts replaced without any defect. The complainant refers to a schedule in the 4th para of the complaint regarding the description of body parts so changed. No such schedule is seen annexed in the complaint.
The complainant has not produced evidence to show that Rs.30,000/- spent for rent a car. The opposite party made a delay of more than 54 days to deliver the vehicle. C1 the commission Report shows the manufacturing defects of the wind shield glass of the complainant’s car. In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result complaint allowed.
We direct the opposite party to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and replace the windshield free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of order or pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day of June 2012.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Receipt dated 20/12/10 for Rs.20,000/- issued by Sitaram Motors,
Palakkad
Ext.A2 – True copy of Job Card Retail Cash Memo dated 20/1/11
Ext.A3 - True copy of e mail dated 31/12/10 issued by the complainant to
opposite party
Ext.A4 – True copy of e mail dated 1/1/11 issued by the complainant to
opposite party
Ext.A5 – True copy of letter dated 27/4/11issued by complainant to the United
India Insurance Co, Palakkad.
Ext.A6 – True copy of letter dated 7/6/11 issued by United India Insurance co.
to the complainant
Ext.A7 – Copy of Lawyer notice issued by complainant’s advocate to the
opposite party dated17/1/11
Ext.A8 –Reply to lawyer notice dated 20/1/11
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – Motor Survey Report dated 11/2/2011
Ext.B2 – Receipt dated 20/12/10 for Rs.20,000/- issued by Sitaram Motors,
Palakkad
Ext.B3 – Photocopy of Satisfaction Note dated 22/1/11
Commission Report
C1 –P.Sugumaran
Cost Allowed
Rs.4,000/- allowed as cost of proceedings.
