DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 22nd day of May 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 18/10/2011
(C.C.No.176/2011)
Rajesh.M
S/o.K.Vidyasagaran,
8/372, Thushara House,
Santhi Colony,
Chandranagar, Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.G.Abhilash)
V/s
M/s.Seetharam Motors,
Maruti Authorised Dealer,
N.H.ByePass Road,
Chandranagar, Palakkad
(Rep.by Managing Director)
(By Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran) - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
The complainant had entrusted his Maruti Alto car LX model bearing registration number KL-09-Y-7031 on 20/8/2011 for the purpose of painting to the opposite party. The vehicle is having full cover insurance and the colour of his car is silky silver. The left side door of the vehicle has a scratch mark and the right side front door has a small dent were the defects noted in the vehicle. According to the complainant two days time was needed to rectify the car. The opposite party did not carry out the work properly and had painted more portions in the body of the car and the colour used for painting is different from original colour silky silver. Due to defective painting dents are formed in the newly painted portion. The opposite party had made the complainant believe that its service station is fully equipped and it was based on the assurance he had entrusted his vehicle for painting work. The workers of the opposite party had caused damage to the upholstery and there by complainant had to sustain a financial loss of Rs.5,000/-. The value of the complainant’s car is reduced by Rs.50,000/- due to the defective painting carried out by the opposite party. The complainant has paid more than Rs.20,000/- to hire a taxi due to the delay of repairing the vehicle by the opposite party. The complainant had preferred a complaint before the Town South Police Station and the service manager had admitted to rectify the defects of the vehicle. The complainant has not carried out painting work in his car prior to the entrusting of vehicle with the opposite party’s service center. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to
1.Pay Rs.75,000/- along with interest @9% as loss and
2. pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and
3. pay the cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had entrusted the car on 20/08/11 for the purpose of painting to them and the vehicle is having full cover insurance. It is not correct to state that due to defective painting dents are formed in the newly painted portion. Opposite party is the authorized dealer of vehicles manufactured by Maruti Udyog Ltd. and the service centre maintained by them also authorized by Maruti Udyog and having all modern equipments, facilities and experienced and qualified service personnels who are highly trained for carrying out any sought of mechanical body and paint work. The opposite party denies that the workers had caused damage to the upholstery and thereby complainant had to sustain a financial loss of Rs.5,000/- The opposite party had carried out the painting work by using high quality paints manufactured by multinational company and by employing qualified and trained person. It is true that the complainant had preferred a similar false complaint before the Police Station and the service manager attached to the opposite party had appraised the police concerned about actual state of affairs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.
Both parties filed their affidavits. Ext.A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant. Commission reports was marked as Ext.C1 & C2. Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issue 1 & 2
Heard both parties and perused relevant documents on record. Admittedly the complainant had entrusted the car to opposite party for the purpose of painting. The complainant stated that opposite party did not carry out the work properly and had painted more portions in the body of the car and the colour used for painting is different from original colour silky silver. In C2 the Commissioner stated that “inferior painting quality was observed on the four doors repainted. This has resulted due to bad workmanship. The reduction in value of the vehicle caused due to this inferior quality painting is assessed as Rs.5,000/-. The opposite party filed objection to Commission Report stating that the commissioner has not reported about the reasons for reduction in value of the car and the heads under which the value is assessed. The opposite party has not taken steps to examine the commissioner and clarify the objections.
In Ext.C1 the Advocate Commissioner inspected the vehicle in the garage of the opposite party and stated that “front and rear seat of the vehicle is soiled in some parts. I could also see that stains of grease and oil in the seats of the vehicle. I found drops of paint in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. The upholstery of the driver’s seat of the vehicle was also seen damaged”. The opposite party stated that the soiling of rear seat and damage caused to the upholstery noted and reported by the Advocate Commissioner is not caused by the service personnel. The opposite party has not produced evidence to prove that the damage caused to the upholstery noted is not caused by the service personnel.
Ext.A1 to A4 shows that the complainant had paid Rs.22,000/- to hire a taxi for meeting his requirements. According to the complainant he approached the opposite party many a time during the period 20/8/11 to 13/10/11. The opposite party failed to complete the work and caused more damages to the car. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party. Further the opposite party has not produced evidence to show that they had carried out painting work by using high quality paints and by employing qualified and trained person. C1 & C2 Commission reports shows the slight colour variation between the newly painted portion and other portions. Also in C1 report the Commissioner noted the stains of grease and oil in the seats of vehicle. In C2 report the expert Commissioner assessed the reduction in value of the vehicle. We considered Rs.5,000/- as the reduction in value of the vehicle caused due to inferior quality painting and Rs.5,000/- as the loss suffered to hire a taxi and Rs.5,000/- as the loss of seat of the vehicle and compensation for mental agony.
In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result complaint allowed. We direct the opposite party liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation for mental agony along with loss and pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of May 2012.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 –Cash Bill dated 24/8/11 of Kings International, Palakkad
Ext.A2 –Cash Bill dated 8/9/11 of Kings International, Palakkad
Ext.A3 –Cash Bill dated 19/9/11 of Kings International, Palakkad
Ext.A4 – Cash Bill dated 10/10/11 of Kings International, Palakkad
Ext.A5 – Photocopy of Demanded Repairs and job instructions capturing sheet
of Sitaram Motors.
Ext.A6 - Copy of complaint letter dated 5/9/11 sent by the complainant to SI
of Police, Town South Police Station, Palakkad
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
-
Commissioner Report
C1 – Viju K Raphel
C2 – Mohanachandran
Cost Allowed
Rs.3,000/- allowed as cost of proceedings
