DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Monday the 31st day of October 2022
C.C. 02/2019
Complainant
Sonuraj C. P,
S/o Rajendran. C. P,
Chalappura House,
P.O Peringolam,
Kozhikode – 673 571.
(By Adv. Sri. Anil Viswanath)
Opposite Party
The Manager & Staff,
Popular Hyundai,
Popular Motor World Private Ltd.,
NH 212, Thazhe Pathimangalam,
Padanilam P.O, Kunnamangalam Via,
Kozhikode – 673571.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 12/10/2018 the complainant entrusted his car bearing registration No. KL- 53-B-1040 to the opposite party for service and repair. The service requirement was to check the coolant leakage, back door and sound from the front. The car was inspected by the service advisor Sri. Ajith and gave an estimate for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for the work and informed that the vehicle would be delivered after 3 days. But the car was not delivered on the promised time and requested for one week more time. But even after the lapse of that period, the car was not delivered. On 31/12/2018 the complainant was asked to pay a pre-invoice bill of Rs. 75, 703 for the work done. The complainant was not ready to make payment of that much amount.
3. On enquiry, he came to know that the engine of the car was damaged due to the inexperience and inefficiency of the mechanics of the opposite party. The engine was removed and was given outside for lathe machining work. At the time of entrustment of the vehicle for service, there was no complaint to the engine. It is learnt that the engine was removed 4 times for repair. The pre-invoice of Rs. 75,703/- was given only to cheat the complainant. The opposite party is solely responsible for the problems to the engine. Hence the complaint for directing the opposite party to pay the price of the car and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as he had to hire another vehicle for his travel needs.
4. The opposite party, though entered appearance, did not file written version and was set ex-parte.
5. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
6. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 were marked. The report of the expert was marked as Ext C1.
7. Heard.
8. Point No.1 : The complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that the inexperience and inefficiency of the mechanics employed by the opposite party has caused engine problems to his car which was entrusted to the opposite party for service and repair and suppressing this fact, a pre-invoice of Rs. 75,703/- was issued to him whereas initially the opposite party had agreed to do the service and repair for an estimated amount of Rs. 15,000/-. It is also the allegation of the complainant that there was long delay in completing the repair.
9. The complainant was not prepared to pay the amount as per the pre-invoice bill. The car is now in the custody of the opposite party.
10. The complainant, who was examined as PW1, has deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the repair order, Ext A2 series are the photos of the car, Ext A3 is the copy of the registration certificate and Ext A4 is the copy of the pre-invoice summary.
11. As we have already stated, the opposite party has not filed any version. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. It is established and proved from the evidence of PW1 that there was inordinate delay on the part of the opposite party in delivering the car to the complainant after service and repairs.
12. It has also come out in evidence that there was failure on the part of the opposite party in diagnosing the real cause for coolant leakage. Regarding the allegation that damage was caused to the engine of the car, there is no convincing evidence. In this context, it is worthwhile to have a glance at Ext C1. Ext C1 was prepared at the instance of the complainant by the Professor in Mechanical Engineering, Government Engineering College, Kozhikode. The learned expert inspected the vehicle in the presence of both the parties and found that the vehicle is in a running condition. The car was started and driven for about 6 kms. No leakage of coolant or undesirable sound could be observed by the learned expert. It is reported in Ext C1 that the opposite party did radiator cleaning, gasket replacement etc anticipating these as the causes for coolant leakage. The engine was removed and the sent outside for lathe machining work by the opposite party and these procedures were repeated so as to perfectly place the gasket. However, the cause of leakage could not be identified at that stage. The real cause of coolant leakage was later identified as due to a very minor crack at the inner side of cooling jacket, near one of the injectors at the cylinder head and this crack was subsequently welded and presently the vehicle is free from reported complaints of back door sound, sound from the front and coolant leakage. The learned expert has opined that the opposite party initially failed in diagnosing the real cause for the coolant leakage and this has caused delay in trouble shooting and in delivery of the vehicle to the customer and associated expenses.
13. Thus Ext C1 also points at the deficiency of service of the opposite party in trouble shooting and the consequent delay in delivery of the vehicle. The opposite party could identify the cause of leakage only at a later stage, which was due to a very minor crack the inner side of the cooling jacket, near one of the injectors, at the cylinder head. So we have no hesitation to hold that there was deficient service on the part of the opposite party. But the allegation that the engine of the car was damaged due to the inefficiency of the mechanics employed by the opposite party is not proved by satisfactory evidence. Ext C1 does not support such an allegation. There is not even the slightest indication in Ext C1 that damage was caused to the engine in the hands of the opposite party. In the absence of any such evidence, the opposite party cannot be saddled with any such liability in respect of the engine.
14. But as we have already stated, there was delay in identifying the cause for coolant leakage. The engine was removed and sent outside for lathe machining work and the procedure was repeated, as the result of which, the expenses for the repair increased. It was only due to the inexperience and inefficiency of the mechanics employed by the opposite party that this happened. Further the evidence of PW1 indicates that the above procedures were done without obtaining his consent. In these circumstances, there is no justification in asking the complainant to pay any additional amount other than what was agreed between the parties. The opposite party is liable to deliver the vehicle to the complainant on payment of Rs. 15,000/- which is the agreed amount.
15. The delay in diagnosing the cause of coolant leakage due to the inexperience and inefficiency of the mechanics and the consequent delay in delivery of the vehicle constitute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant was put to severe mental agony and inconvenience due to the latches of the opposite party. He was deprived of the facility of using his car for a long time and he had to resort to other modes of travel. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 3500/- as cost of the proceedings.
16. Point No.2: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC 02/2019 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite party is hereby directed to release the car bearing registration number KL 53-B- 1040 to the complainant on payment of a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) by the complainant.
c) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience, mental agony and hardship suffered.
d) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500 (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
e) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 31st day of October, 2022.
Date of Filing: 04/01/2019.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the repair order.
Ext. A2 series – Photographs.
Ext. A3 – Copy of the registration certificate.
Ext. A4 – Copy of the pre-invoice summary.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Sonuraj. C. P (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Commission Exhibits
Ext. C1 – Commission report.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
