BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 8th July 2015
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 5/2015
Complainant/s: 1. Praveen G.Pawadigoudra,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Private, R/o.Shivanand Nagar, Navanagar, Hubli-25 (Presently working at Bangalore)
2. Pradeep G.Pawadigoudra,
Age: 27 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.Shivanand Nagar, Navanagar, Hubli-25.
(By Sri.S.B.Katagi, Adv.)
v/s
Respondent/s: 1. The Managing Director, Manickbag Automobiles (P) Ltd., Authorised Dealers of Tata Motors & Fiat, Dharwad Road, Vidyanagar, Hubli 580031.
2. Mehboob Khan, Service Advisor, Manickbag Automobiles (P) Ltd., Hubli.
(By Sri.B.S.Hoskeri, Adv.)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents by holding the respondents have rendered deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to direct the respondents to replace the damaged / disfigured Lambda Sensor with new one & to order for payment of Rs.50000/- towards compensation for mental agony and inconvenience & to order for payment of Rs.10000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainants is that, the complainants.1 & 2 are the brothers. Complainant.1 purchased the car in his name from respondent.1 and complainants.1 and 2 are making utilization of the car for their family use. After purchase of the said vehicle complainants are attending properly and availed all services as per the direction of the respondents with the authorized service center. While making use of the said car on 03.11.2014 the complainant.2 noticed “malfunction indicator lamp” appearing on dashboard screen. Hence, the complainant.2 took the said car to the respondent.1 on the same day at 11.30 PM. During that time respondent.2 after taking delivery of the said car assured the complainant that they will ensure the defects by 5 PM on the same day & they will re-deliver the same. Thereafter the respondent.2 entered all the information in their Tab & obtained the signature of the complainant in the Tab itself but did not issued any job card & requested the complainant to approach in the evening. But when the complainant.2 asked with the respondent.2 with regard to the progress of the work during that time R2 told, they were checking the vehicle and assured the repair charges will come around Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/- & also said Lambda sensor is showing error & told they will inform later with regard to the progress of the work. But the respondent.2 did not called the complainant even on 04.11.2014. When the complainant called the R2 on 05.11.2014 during that time R2 told, electronic control unit is damaged and it needs change & Lambda sensor also requires to be change. By saying that the same was damaged due to washing. ECO & lambda sensor will cost around Rs.25000/-. When the complainant visited the service station of R2 on 06.11.2014 during that time complainant noticed new lambda sensor was installed & the damaged lambda sensor was kept in separate box & it was damaged and was fixed in wiring tape. The R2 also told, the same was damaged while the complainant had repaired the same with some other outside persons. During that time the complainant protested the same as the complainant has not approached any other service station except respondents. On 07.11.2014 the R2 gave quotation for Rs.7477-70. By seeing the same the complainant approached MD but MD of R2 did not responded. On 08.11.2014 by protesting the same the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle without carrying any repairs to the damaged lambda sensor & paid Rs.843/- to the respondents. While leaving the vehicle for repair the vehicle was in good condition & no damages were caused to the lambda sensor. During the repair only respondents have damaged the lambda sensor & held liable for the complainant to incur Rs.25,000/- for replacement, that amounts to deficiency in service by the respondents. The complainant on 18.11.2014 got issued notice to the respondents calling upon to replace disfigured lambda sensor & to pay compensation. On 11.12.2014 the respondent sent e-mail reply denying the claim. On 11.11.2014 the complainant got diagnostic checking of ECU & lambda sensor with one Zimoto Auto Care Hubli by paying Rs.393/-. Hence, the complainants filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought
3. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents.1 & 2 appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondents taken contention that the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and misconceived and also by making further allegation that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands made concocted claims in order to have wrongful gain. Also denied the relationship between complainant.1 and 2 and other allegations made in the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint by putting the complainants to strict proof of the complaint averments. Among such other admissions and denials the respondent denied all the averments of the complaint with regard to maintenance of the vehicle, regular servicing, left the vehicle for repair with outsiders, causing damages to the ECO & lambda sensor, misbehaved by the MD, causing damage to the vehicle while it was left for repair & causing of the alleged damages while attending the repair by mechanics of the respondent and assurance made by the respondent.2 with regard to the replacement, cost of the replacement & giving rebate in the replacement charges and labour charges & cost of the repair charges as averred by the complainant. Further the respondent contended that admittedly the said vehicle was brought by the complainant with a problem of malfunction indicator lamp on the dash board & noisy sound in the engine & also averred when the complainant approached the respondent.2 immediately respondent.2 noted the complaints & required repairs with estimation & also delivered job card, even then for the best reason known to the complainant even then the respondents have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged filed the instant complaint to enrich themselves at the hands of the respondents and as per the admission of the complainants that they have replaced the ECU & lambda sensor somewhere at Belgaum itself reveals the complainants vehicle before leaving to the respondent garage was suffering from some engine problem, even then filed the instant complaint and prays for dismissal of the same.
4. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit. The complainants got cross examined the RW1 as per the order. The complainants relied on documents. Both have apart from argument filed notes of argument. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
1. Affirmatively
2. Accordingly
3. As per order
Reasons
Points 1 and 2
5. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the complainant left the vehicle with the respondent to attend & repair the same.
6. Now the question to be determined is, whether the respondents have damaged ECU & lambda sensor while & during the course of attending the repair by their mechanics at the respondents garage, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.
7. It is further admitted fact that, while and at the time of leaving the vehicle for repair the respondent did not issued job card. Even though in the later stage the respondents taken contention that at the time of delivery of vehicle for repair they have noted the defects and issued job card to the complainant. The respondent did not produced the job card in corroboration of their contention. While complainant produced the so called job card contending that the same has been obtained by him by taking photo through cell phone flash by himself Ex.C-19. On perusal of the said cell phone flash photo, do not bears signature of complainant. However the said job card reveals in the column complaint details, “check engine lights come on”. In the same job card in the column repair details, “issue remove /refit-check in examiner”, estimated cost shown Rs.143.8208/-. Job card opened on 11.03.2014 by 12:51:42, SE attended time 11.03.2014, 11:42:11. According to the complainant, complainant left the vehicle with respondent on 03.11.2014 and argued, job card date differ from the date on which the vehicle was left for repair. For this the LC for respondent submits his argument, it is an official practice to note month first next date afterwards year. Except this it is not proper to submit by the complainant that the job card is prepared subsequent to the date of delivery of vehicle for repair. But it is not the case of the complainant that he left the vehicle with the respondent till 11.03.2014. But as per the own admission of the complainant on 08.11.2014 he took delivery of the vehicle from respondent without repair.
8. Though the complainant got cross examined the RW1 the complainant is not succeeded in eliciting from RW1 that the ECU & lambda sensor have been damaged at the instance of the respondent while carrying out repair. Both the parties except agitating their respective claims viz., have been damaged and have not been damaged ECU & lambda sensor both have not successfully explained why malfunctioning indicator lamp was indicating in the dashboard screen. However as per the admission of both the parties that lamp will appear only if there is any malfunction or wrongs in the engine or sensor system. Under those circumstances the contention of the complainant that the respondents have damaged ECU & lambda sensor while it was left for repair is not proper & not believable in the absence of corroborative & cogent evidence.
9. The complainant apart from leading evidence and cross examining the RW1 also relied on CD (Ex.C-18) of cell phone recorded conversations in between the complainant and R2. Since the recording has not been subjected to proof however this Forum has taken into consideration as there is exchange of conversation in between the complainant and RW1. However with regard to the damages to the ECU & lambda sensor has not come out in the conversation except attending repair, testing and the estimation with regard to the repair charges. Even in the evidence it has come out that even the cable is damaged it could be utilize by putting insulation tape and it requires no replacement. But where the cable was broken is not come forward & also who have taped the insulation tape to the cable is also not comeforth. By looking into the appearance of malfunction indicator lamp it could be make out that there was some shortcoming in the engine or sensor earlier to delivery of car for repair otherwise malfunction indicator lamp would not have appeared & glow.
10. By this it is evident that the vehicle belongs to the complainant was suffering from defects which was noticed and diagnosed by the respondent in their garage. The complainant failed to establish the same was damaged at the instance of the respondent at their garage.
11. However malfunction of ECU & lambda sensor was diagnosed by diagnating checking center of one Mr.Manohar , Service advisor as admitted by complainant. Even as per the admission of the complainant the complainant got replaced the same at Belgaum Center of Belgaum garage belongs to the respondent company Ex.C-17 (a) & (b). If there was no defects in the lambda sensor & ECU the complainant would have not have replaced it. Under those circumstances the argument of the complainant that even though the ECU & lambda sensor installed in his car without testing the respondent.2 has replaced new one is not proper. It is the case of respondent also that since the ECU & lambda sensor were not working by replacing their own new system tested, during that time it was worked when the complainant refused to replace it, they installed old one by applying plaster and delivered back. By this it is evident that the complainant failed to establish the respondents have damaged ECU & lambda sensor & its cable connector as such the respondents are not liable to pay cost of the same or to replace it.
12. By looking into the pleadings, evidence & coupled with argument of both the parties it is evident that the respondents immediately after delivery of repaired vehicle have not prepared job card and also have not attended defects prior to bringing it to the notice of the owners of the vehicle. As such, concerned to this aspect the respondents have committed wrong & deficiency in service to that an extent. It is the general notice to all garages to prepare the job card immediately after taking delivery of vehicles and to deliver copy of the job card & to obtain prior permission from the owner of the vehicle before attending the repairs to avoid further and future unnecessary disputes between the customer and service provider. Hence, as a general message to the public this type of negligence and for carelessness activities of respondents could be check only by way of imposing punishment. Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation in this regard.
13. In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmative and accordingly.
14. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
Order
Complaint is partly allowed against respondent.1 and dismissed against respondent.2. Respondent.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards compensation by way of fine for non issuing the job card prior to attend the repair works & to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. from thereon till realization.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 8th day of July 2015)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
