This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opponent alleging deficiency of service.
The complainants case in brief are that the complainant purchased a MARUTHI WAGON R VXI BS4 Model LMV car from OP on 15/06/2015 vide sale certificate dated 16/06/2015 vide sale certificate No.VSL 15000407 with hypothecation with T. Shettigeri Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society of Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District.The complainant was entitled for all the service and repairs as per the terms and conditions of the OP.The complainant states that the first service of the vehicle was done on 01/07/2015 and after the first service the vehicle started developing mechanical faults such as abnormal heating of the engine etc.
The complainant states that immediately he contacted the OP over the phone and informed the OP about the non-functioning of the vehicle.The complainant on the advise of the OP took the vehicle to the OP’s office at Mysore.The complainant states that as the vehicle was not in a drivable condition, he had to toe the vehicle from Virajpet to Mysore by paying 6,000/-.The OP repaired the vehicle and charged Rs.5,119/- from the complainant and delivered the said vehicle on 29/05/2015.The complainant states that on 27/10/2015 the vehicle again developed the same mechanical faults and the complainant had to toe the said vehicle again to the OP’s office at Mysore under the instructions of the OP.The complainant paid Rs.6,000/- for toeing the vehicle.
The complainant states that he left the vehicle in the OP’s office as per the OP’s directions for necessary repairs and the complainant was asked to come back after one month.The complainant states that after one month when he visited the OP’s office to take his vehicle back, he was shocked to see his vehicle lying in the OP’s office unattended.The complainant states that when he questioned the OP regarding the vehicle, the OP had demanded Rs.53,750/- from the complainant inorder to do the necessary repairs.The complainant states that he had informed the OP that the vehicle was a brand new vehicle with a valid insurance and hence claim the repair charges from the Insurance Company.But OP refused to do so.The complainant insisted the OP to send the vehicle back to the manufacturer and replace the said vehicle with a brand new vehicle, to which the OP refused to do so.
The complainant issued a legal notice through his Advocate on 25/01/2016.The OP received the said notice on 02/02/2016 but had not replied to it.The complainant states that the OP had delivered a faulty vehicle and later on did not repair it properly.The complainant in his notice had asked the OP to rectify all the mechanical faults or deliver another new vehicle, but the OP had not done so and hence OP is guilty of deficiency of service.
The following points arise for consideration;
Whether the complainant has shown deficiency of service by the OP?
Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows;
Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative
Point No.2:- As per order
Point No.1:-The complainant in order to prove his case, as already stated above has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and has relied upon the documents in support of his case.
The complainant has filed the job card as a document which shows the repairs demanded and mentions that the engine not starting and vehicle over heating dated 29/09/2015. Another document dated 21/11/2015 Job Slip also shows the repairs to be done and the estimate value of repair Rs.53,730/-. All these documents goes to show that there is an inherent defect in the vehicle. The complainant has stated in his complaint that he had asked the OP to claim the amount for the repair of the said vehicle from the Insurance Company but the complainant has not produced the copy of the Insurance of the vehicle, and also the RC copy.
The said evidence of the complaint is neither challenged nor rebutted by the OP in any manner as the OP remained absent inspite of notice being received duly to them through RPAD. Hence the evidence of the complainant remained unchallenged.
The problem of the vehicle started immediately after the first service. As per the terms and condition of the OP the vehicle was under the warranty period and on perusal of the documents it is clear on face itself that there is a inherent defect in the vehicle. The OP should have looked into the problem of the said vehicle, when OP themselves had given one month time to the complainant for repair. But instead of repairing the said vehicle, OP had kept it untouched without repairing it. Hence under these circumstances, we have no other alternative except to believe the said evidence of the complaint.
In view of all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established his case as made out in the complaint by placing material on record.Therefore the OP is directed to conduct a thorough repair of the said vehicle and hand over to the complainant at the OP’s own cost.
Point No.2:- In view of our findings on point no.1, we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the C.P. Act by Sri. Chettangada N. Vivek on 10/03/2016 against the OP is hereby partly allowed.
The OP is directed to conduct a thorough repair of the said vehicle MARUTI WAGON R VXI BS4 Reg.No.KA-12 Z 4765 and handover to the complainant at the OP’s own cost.
The OP is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the mental agony and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.The OP is directed to comply with the aforesaid orders within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in failure to comply with this order the OP is liable to pay an interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of compliance of the aforesaid order.
If this order is violated the complainant is also at liberty to file private complaint against OP for the offences punishable under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, which is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.
Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 30th day of June 2016)
