Date of filing : 30-07-2013
Date of order : 30-10-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.177/2013
Dated this, the 30th day of October 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Dineshan, : Complainant
484/10 Mullantharayil House,
Kanhangad.
(Adv.C.Damodaran, Kasaragod)
The Manager, : Opposite party
Amma’s Auto Tech (Tata Motors),
Authorised Service Centre,
V.V.Nagar, Cheruvathur. 671313
(Adv.C.K.Unnikrishnan, Hosdurg)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The gist of the complaint is that the complainant Dineshan is the driver cum owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 60B -7500 Sumo Grande Taxi. Complainant is a regular customer of opposite party for the purpose of repairing the vehicle. On completion of 90496 KM on 2-5-2012 some repair work was done in respect of bearing, oil filter etc. The timing belt was replaced on 1-3-2013 as the same was broken in to pieces. On 28-04-2013 night when the vehicle was coming from Kollur to Kanhangad with passengers and reached at CPCRI the vehicles suddenly stopped and could not be moved at all as the timing belt was completely broken in to pieces and the water pump started leaking. Complainant contacted opposite party and requested to repair the vehicle. Usually the timing belt lasts till the vehicle complete one lakh KMs but here the damage occurred after running only 7000KMs, within 2 months of repair and replacement of timing belt. Therefore the complainant requested opposite party to repair the vehicle free of cost. Opposite party agreed to do the repair free of labour charges only and refused to provide free spare parts. The vehicle was taken to the authorized show room of TATA Motors by towing and repair work was done by spending Rs.52,000/- complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as the repair work done on 1-3-2013 was incorrect and improper so as to cause breaking of the timing belt of the vehicle after running only 7000KMs instead of 1 lakh KMs.
2. Opposite party filed version denying all allegations in the complaint and stated that all customers are provided with owners manual and service book prescribing the service to be carried out by the owner on time to time. Life of the vehicle is totally depended on this service schedule being maintained by the customer. Timely maintenance and servicing as recommended in this manual assure trouble free operation over the said period. Performance guarantee of the vehicle seizes when a scheduled service recommended by the manufacturer in the service is missed. Due to the long gap between services the wear and tear damage to the engine parts caused further repeated complaints. The timing belt work by touching crankpulley, water pump, auto tensioner, cam gear touch idler, HP pumpsider. Therefore the life of the timing belt depends upon the capacity of the above mentioned parts of the engine. The non-functioning of the any of the item above mentioned shall caus breakage of timing belt. Moreover, opposite party has advised the customer to rush to the workshop on hearing any abnormal noise or completing 5000 KMs for a further check up which the customer ignored. The timing belt can also be broken due to the high pressure pump malfunctions. When the timing belt was replaced at opposite party’s work shop, replaced only water pump which caused the timing belt complaint. The opposite party is not liable for the expenses incurred by the complainant towards registering complaint, towing charges etc. Since it happened due to the gross negligence of the complainant and availed the service of some other workshop.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Exts A1 to A12 marked. Complainant faced cross examination by opposite party’s counsel. Ext.B1 marked. A witness is examined as PW2. Ext.B2 and B2(a) marked. Both parties filed argument notes both sides heard, documents perused.
4. The questions raised for consideration are:
1 Whether there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite
party?
2. If so what is the relief?
5. Issue No.1. The complainant Dineshan driver cum owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-60B-7500 Sumo Grande taxi replaced the timing belt of the vehicle and some other repair works, on 1-3-2013 with the help of opposite party, as the same was broken in to pieces, on 28-04-2013 night when the vehicle was coming from Kollur to Kanhangad with passengers reached at CPCRI, the vehicle suddenly stopped could not be moved at all. Complainant who is a regular customer of opposite party, telephoned and informed his grievances to opposite party. Opposite party agreed to repair the vehicle free of labour charges but not ready to supply parts free of cost. Usually the timing belt lasts till the vehicle completes one lakh KMs. But here the damage occurred after running only 7000KMs. That also within 2 months of replacing of timing belt. While perusing Ext.B1 document discloses that 8 items parts of the vehicle replaced on1-3-2013 and the repair work was done under the supervision of service advisor M.Balakrishnan soon after such a detailed repair work nobody expects defects in functioning. It is true that there is a special instruction on Ext.B1 to the complainant to bring the vehicle for inspection incase of any abnormal noise from engine water leak or after running 5000 KMs since there was no abnormal sound till then he did not approached opposite party. But it is the duty of the opposite party to see that the vehicle is repaired in such a manner and fitted with genuine parts, work carried out properly so as to ensure trouble free use of the vehicle for another 1 lakh KMs when delivered after repair. The consequent break down on the completion of 7000 KMs cannot be attributed to the complainant not bringing the vehicle on completion of 5000 KMs. A vehicle can run trouble free for 35000 KMs shows negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. However, in para 8 of the version last sentence opposite party’s case “Hence the present failure of timing belt would be purely due to the failure of assembling high pressure pump”. But in page 3 of the cross examination DW1 stated contradictory to the above statements that he do not have a case that the break down is due to the failure of high pressure pump. Moreover, the complainant is a regular customer who has repaired his vehicle on several occasion at Opposite party’s work shop. Opposite party failed in his duty as he did previous repair prior to break down was incorrect and defective.
6. Issue No.2. : On perusing the records evidences before us we are of the opinion that due to the defective repair of opposite party in the previous occasion complainant has again constrained to spent Rs. 52,000/- as repair charges. He suffered loss of income on account of non-plying of the vehicle. Due to the negligent work of opposite party complainant suffered mental agony and loss of income hence the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay repair charge of Rs.52,000/- with Rs. 25,000/- for loss of income and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony.
In result complaint is allowed and directing the opposite party to pay Rs.87,000/- to the complainant with a cost of Rs. 3000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.10-05-2013Tax Invoice.
A2. 01-03-2013 Tax Invoice
A3.2-3-2013 Bill Issued by Ammas Auto Tech.
A4.2-5-2012 Tax Invoice
A5. 2-5-12 Bill issued by Ammas Auto Tech
A6. 2-5-12 Repair Order Ammas Auto Tech
A7.25-10-2011 Tax Invoice
A8.25-10-2011 Bill issued by Ammas Auto Tech
A9. 05-09-2011 Tax Invoice
A10. 03-06-2011 Photocopy tax invoice
A11. 16-02-2011 Proforma Invoice.
A12.4-2-2011 Tax invoice
B1.03-01-2013 Job Card Workshop Copy
B2. Timing parts details
PW1. N.Dineshan.
Pw2. Abijith.S
DW1. Praveen.K.V.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
