BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 17^th day of February 2017

Filed on : 23-07-2014

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.560/2014

Between

Santhosh Kumar M, : Complainant

S/o. M.E. Gangadharan, (By Adv. C.K. Sreejith,

Manjeri house, Room No. 654, 6^th floor, Golden

Ramanathali P.O., Jubilee Memorial Bldg, Chamber

Kannur-670 308 Complex, Near High Court,

Ernakulam)

Presently res. at

Santhoshkumar M,

H. No. 48/1920(A),

Geethanjali,

Janakeeya Road-3,

JKS-232, Elamakkara,

Cochin-26.

And

1. The Managing Director, : Opposite parties

General Motors (India) Ltd, (1^st and 2^nd O.P. By Adv. Bepin

Plot No. 15, Institutional Area, Vijayan, 5-17, Empire Building,

Gurgaon, Haryana-122 001. ORS Road, Near High Court

Complex, Kochi-682 018)

2. The Managing Director,

Chevrolet India Pvt. Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Plot No. 15,

Sector 32, Gurgaon,

Haryana – 122 001.

3. The General Manager,

Geeyem Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

11/336, NH 47 bye pass,

Nettoor P.O., Cochin-682 040.

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

1. Complainant’s case

2. The complainant’s wife Smt. Leena M.P. is the owner of Chevrolet spark car with Reg. No. KL 07/BL/7752 . The car was entrusted to the 3^rd opposite party M/s. G.M. Motors, Nettoor on 23-05-2014 for rectification of battery and Right Rear Left Hand Winder . The technician of the opposite parties examined the vehicle and estimated the repair cost at Rs. 5,975/-. The complainant had intimated the 3^rd opposite party not to do any other works. However, after repairs the complainant was informed that the total charges for repairs done is around Rs. 8,000/-. Additional works were done by the opposite parties without the consent of the complainant. When the complainant reached to take delivery of the car he was handed over a bill for Rs. 12,293/- . The bill reveals that the opposite party had collected amount like paid service charges Rs. 975/-, exterior dressing Rs. 517/-, brake cleaning and adjusting Rs. 517/- etc. The complainant doubts as to whether those repairs mentioned in the bill had actually been carry out . The complainant is entitled to get the excess amount refunded as there was deficiency in service. The complainant also seeks Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation.

3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared and filed their respective versions. The 3^rd opposite party did not appear to contest the matter.

4. When the matter came up for trial in list the complainant filed proof affidavit but did not appear to get himself cross-examined. Exbts. A1 to A5 documents were marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite parties 1 and 2 marked Exbt. B1 and B2 documents. The opposite party No. 3 at the time of evidence produced Exbt. B3 document, though no version was filed.

5. Following issues were settled for consideration

1. Whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party?

2. Reliefs and costs

6. Issue No. i. The complainant did not appear in person to subject himself for cross-examination. Exbt. A1 is the bill issued in the name of the complainant by the 3^rd opposite party on 3^rd May 2014. Exbt. A2 is a bill dated 23-05-2014. Exbt. A3 is an Advocate notice issued on behalf of the complainant to the opposite parties demanding the refund of the amount collected in excess by the 3^rd opposite party . Exbt. A4 is the reply notice issued on behalf of the 3^rd opposite party. According to the 3^rd opposite party all the works were done only as per the instruction given by the complainant. Exbt. A5 is the acknowledgment card for having received the Advocate notice.

1. 1. 7. The 3^rd opposite party had produced Exbt. B3 documents showing that the registration of the vehicle has been transferred to one Mr. Vinod A.C. with effect from 16-03-2015. On going through the documents as above it is seen that the complainant has no subsisting interest in the subject matter of the case, as the vehicle has already been sold to strangers. Further Exbts. A1 to A5 documents did not prove any deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party. No prayer is sought against opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant did not appear to subject himself for cross-examination as well. In the above circumstance we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i against the complainant, the complaint stands dismissed, however without any order as to costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17^th day of February 2017

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

Appendix

Complainant's exhibits

Exbt. A1 : Copy of repair order

A2 : Copy of credit invoice

dt. 23-05-2014

A3 : Copy of lawyer notice

dt. 28-05-2014

A4 : Copy of reply notice

dt. 13-06-2014

A5 : A.D. Card

Opposite party's Exhibits

Exbt. B1 : Copy of retailer sales and service

agreement

B2 : Copy of standard provisions of the

CSIPL Retailer Agreement

B3 : Registration details

Copy of order despatched on :

By Post: By Hand: