DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 22th day of December, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V, President
: Smt. Vidya A, Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K, Member Date of Filing: 26.06.2020
CC/63/2020
M.V.Thomas,
The Managing Director
Mother Care Health Centre,
Vattambalam, Kumaramputhur,
Mannarkkad, Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv. C.Madhavankutty)
V/s
1. The Manager,
BMW Auto Craft,Kalamassery,
Eranakulam. 683 104
2. The Managing director,
BMW Auto Craft,Kalamassery,
Eranakulam 683 104 - Opposite parties
(Opposite parties 1 & 2 by Adv. Sindhupriya K
& Arun Krishnan R)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant was a regular customer of the opposite party and his vehicle BMW X 6 car was under the service of the opposite party for the last 4 years.
On 28.12.2019, when the complainant was travelling from Ettumanur to Mannarkkad, air suspension problem developed in his vehicle and the driver informed the complainant about his inability to drive the vehicle. The complainant approached the opposite party for repair and their service team after inspecting the vehicle, issued vehicle condition report which showed only two minor dents on the body on one side.
The opposite party had taken the vehicle for service and replaced the suspension and charged more than 2 lakh rupees which were paid to the 1st opposite party. On 10/01/2020 night, the opposite party’s service team delivered the vehicle at the complainant’s home.
On 12.01.2020, when the complainant’s driver came for duty, he found that there were many scratches and dents on many parts of the vehicle which was not there at the time of giving for service. The complainant informed the matter to the service head and he promised to look in to the issue and revert back.
Later the 1st opposite party informed the complainant that the same did not happen when the vehicle was under their custody. So they cannot take the responsibility and it cannot be rectified at their cost. This conduct of the opposite party amounts to gross negligence, Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
As per the complainant, the vehicle met with an accident when it was with the opposite party and inorder to hide it, they applied some rubbing polish so that it could not be identified.
The photographs send by opposite party’s staff shows that the same had happened between 28.12.2019 and 30.12.2019 when the vehicle was under opposite party’s custody and they are liable to repair the damages at their cost.
The complainant had caused issuance of registered lawyer notice for which the opposite party did not reply or resolve the issue.
So this complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to remove the scratches and repair the dents or to pay the cost and to pay compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for their deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
2. Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The main contentions raised by the opposite parties in their version are as follows:
According to the opposite parties, the vehicle was delivered to BMW service station by the accident towing service persons arranged by the complainant himself. After repair, the vehicle was delivered at the complainant’s home. Complainant received the vehicle after a test drive by himself and after thorough examination of the vehicle including the overall body. The other allegation regarding scratches and dents in the vehicle when examined by the driver is denied by the opposite parties. The vehicle was personally examined by the complainant and was fully satisfied.
The opposite party has taken utmost care in servicing the vehicle and it was delivered in the same condition as it was entrusted to the opposite party, after rectifying the air suspension problem. There was no negligence or Unfair Trade Practice or Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other allegations in the complaint are denied by the opposite party.
The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from the opposite party and the complaint has to be dismissed with the cost of the opposite party.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration.
- Whether there is any Deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice
on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
- Reliefs if any as cost and compensation.
5. Complainant did not file proof affidavit even after several chances being given and his evidence was closed. Later on, the complainant filed IA 337/22 to re–open evidence and RA 109/22 to review the order dated 08.06.22. [IA was dismissed on the ground that “there is nothing in the IA that warrants re-opening of evidence. The complainant had representation in the court all through the proceedings and had knowledge of the daily proceeding.” RA 109/22 seeks to review the order in 08.06.22 which reads as. “Complainant and opposite party represented. Opposite party filed proof affidavit and list of documents. For marking of document. There is no error apparent on the face of the order and RA is dismissed]. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and Exhibit B1 marked from their side.
6. Point No: 1
As per the complainant, on 28.12.2019 while he was travelling from Ettumannur to Mannarkkad his vehicle BMW X6 developed air suspension problem and due to that his driver was not able to drive it. On informing, the opposite party’s service team took it and they inspected the vehicle. The vehicle condition report issued by the opposite parties showed only two minor dents on the body on one side. The opposite parties replaced the suspension and delivered the vehicle at his home on 10.01.2020 night. On 12.01.2020, when his driver came for duty, he found many scratches and dents on the vehicle which was not there at the time of entrusting the vehicle to the opposite parties. According to him, the vehicle met with an accident at the opposite party’s hands and they are responsible to repair it at their expense.
In order to prove his case, complainant produced some photographs (not marked) sent by the staff of the opposite party. From the photographs it is not possible to identify the issues alleged by the complainant.
7. The opposite party’s contention in this regard is that the vehicle entrusted to them for repair was properly repaired by replacing the suspension and the vehicle was delivered at complainant’s place by the staff of the opposite party. The complainant himself had inspected the vehicle and drove it and he was fully satisfied with their service. The damages, if any, as alleged by the complainant did not occur while it was in opposite party’s custody and they are not responsible to repair it.
8. The complainant did not adduce any evidence to prove his contentions. The case was posted for complainant’s proof affidavit from 22/10/2020 onwards. Even though there were several ‘adjournments by notification’ during Covid-19 Pandemic period, there was ample time for filing the proof affidavit after that. So the complainant’s evidence was closed. Later on, the complainant filed IA 337/22 to re-open evidence and it was dismissed.
9. Other than the submissions, no attempt was made by the complainant to cross examine the opposite party to bring out the veracity of his contentions.
In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence, no Deficiency in service can be attributed on the opposite parties.
So we are not inclined to allow the prayer in the complainant and the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Court on this day, the 22nd of December, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V,
President
Sd/-
Vidya A,
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the Complainant: NIL
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties:
Ext.B-1: Authorization letter produced by the opposite party 2.
Witness examined from the side of complainant: Nil
Witness examined from the side of opposite parties: Nil
Cost: NIL
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
