By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to replace the gear box and to refund the amount collected from complainant and to pay cost and compensation.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant approached opposite parties and handed over complainant's Hyundai car bearing registration No. KL 12 F 6090 on 06.05.2014 following an oil leak from axle. The estimate cost of the above oil seal charge was Rs.1,500/-. When the complainant approach opposite party No.1 after two days of period opposite party No.1 made the complainant to believe that the oil leak was not from the axle but from the gear box and it is necessary to inspect the gear box thoroughly after removing gear box from the engine and it would take another three days. After three days complainant again approached opposite party No.1 and opposite parties No.1 had directed the complainant to change the gear box oil and all the relevant seals, housing, clutch etc and opposite party No.2, took 18 (eighteen) days to complete the above mentioned servicing and repair of the vehicle and charged Rs.13,257/- and handed over the vehicle to the complainant on 24.05.2014. But opposite party No.1 had asked to pay another Rs.10,000/- to rectify the humming noise of the gear box and also told that there was a crack developed in the outer housing of the gear box. To rectify the defect in the outer housing of the gear box, the relevant parts have to be brought from Chennai and it will take another 15 days. However as an authorized service agency of Hyundai, opposite parties haven't performed the duty of the service agency, had not rectified the defect properly and exorbitantly charged Rs.13,257/- from the complainant, without any genuine reason. The complainant had spent Rs.36,000/- from 06.05.2014 to 24.05.2014 for renting out taxi for his personal needs. More over it is the duty of the servicing agency to rectify the defect and to do the needful according to the arising demands from the vehicle. Both opposite parties had jointly and severally with the connivance to extract more money from the complainant have not carried out proper servicing deliberately and intentionally and caused loss of Rs.13,257/- and economical loss of Rs.36,000/- to the complainant. More over opposite parties liable to pay the complainant Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for defaming complainant before the complainant and prayed before the Forum to direct the opposite parties to refund amount Rs.13,257/- received by opposite party No.2 and to pay cost and compensation.
3. Notices were served to opposite parties and both opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version.
4. Opposite Party No.1 filed version stating that this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. This opposite party admits that the complainant had brought the vehicle bearing KL 12 F 6090 at the showroom of this opposite party for repair works, with the complaint that the vehicle is having oil leak from its axle. This opposite party then gave an estimated cost of Rs.1,500/- for repairing the above complaint. But when the service personnel of this opposite party inspected the vehicle for repairing the said defects, the service personnel could notice the gear box breakage, clutch housing and oil leakage to the gearbox. The service personnel could further notice damages to the differential assembly also. The service personnel then informed the same to the complainant at once and recommended to change the differential assembly and the differential assembly case. But the complainant was not willing to change the same and instead the complainant wanted this opposite party to repair it for temporarily that. This opposite party then did the same to the full satisfaction of the complainant. This opposite party humbly submits that the service personnel of this opposite party had specifically instructed and advised the complainant to change the differential assembly case, without fail. The complainant then informed the opposite party that he intends to repair the same from a local mechanic. This opposite party respectfully submits that this opposite party had clearly informed the complainant before the repairing work is started that some of the parts are not in the stock and it may take around 20 days to receive the said parts and so the delivery of the vehicle will also be delayed for such time. The complainant had agreed for the same at that time. The complainant now claiming the same as delay from the part of my client is only with the ulterior intention of claiming unfairly at the hands of this opposite party by taking the advantage of a benevolent legislation and the allegation that opposite party No.1 took 18 days to complete the work the above mentioned servicing and repair of the vehicle and charged Rs.13,257/- and handed over the vehicle to the complainant on 24.05.2014 but the opposite party No.1 had asked to pay another Rs.10,000/- to rectify the humming noise of the gear box and also told that there was a crack developed in the outer housing of the gear box and also to rectify the defect in the outer housing of the gear box the relevant parts have to be brought from Chennai and it will take another 15 days are all false, incorrect and imaginary and hence denied. The contention of the complainant that he had spent Rs.36,000/- from 06.05.2014 to 24.05.2014 for renting out taxi for his personal also denied. And another allegation that opposite party is liable to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, Rs.25,000/- for defaming the complainant before the public and also to replace the defective gear box and to pay notice charge of Rs.2,000/- are false. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Version filed by opposite party No.2 is as follows:- The complainant is neither a consumer as contemplated under consumer Protection Act, there is no defect in goods or deficiency in service and this opposite party is an unnecessary party in this case. This opposite party is the authorized dealer and service centre of Hyundai India Private Limited. On 27.08.2011 the complainant purchased a car from this opposite party which was manufactured by M/s. Hyundai India Private Limited, after verifying the different models available at the showroom of the opposite party. The complainant had chosen the vehicle Hyundai i10 sportz bearing engine No.G4LABM657075 after being fully satisfied about its quality, performance and standard. The warranty period of the vehicle is two years from the date of purchase. After the purchase of the vehicle the complainant did not approach this opposite party for free service or any assistance. The alleged defects occurred only after three years from the date of purchase which is due to the improper or negligent use of the vehicle. There was absolutely no manufacturing defects, negligence or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. The allegations contained in different unnumbered paragraphs of the complaint are not proper, correct or sustainable. The allegation that this opposite party No.2 took 18 days to service the vehicle and charged Rs.13,257/- and given the vehicle on 24.05.2014 is not true or correct and hence denied and he never approached this opposite party for any services and hence there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of this opposite party and hence this opposite party is not liable for any reliefs. The different allegations of negligence, defective service and unfair trade practice are baseless, erroneous and unsustainable, and hence hereby specifically denied. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the Repair order dated 06.05.2014, which is for change oil seal, axle oil seal and wherein estimated amount is shown as Rs.1,500/- and no delivery date is mentioned. Ext.A2 is the bill dated 24.05.2014 for Rs.13,257/-. Opposite party filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and he is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 to B3 documents were marked. Ext.B1 is the Reply notice given by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
7. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the
side of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
8. Point No.1:- The complainant entrusted the vehicle for repair to opposite party No.1 after 3 years of purchase. Then there is no question of warranty or free service. When the vehicle entrusted for change of oil seal and axle oil seal the work order is given for the estimate cost of Rs.1,500/- but when the service personal of opposite party inspected the vehicle for repairing they could notice gear box breakage, clutch housing and oil leakage to gear box also and also noticed the differential assembly damage also and it is intimated to the complainant and recommended to change the differential assy and case. But the complainant was not ready to replace the same and he requested to repair it temporarily and repaired the vehicle after getting the consent from the complainant and received Rs.13,257/- from the complainant after full satisfaction. At the time of delivery the complainant not made any complaint to receive the vehicle. For all other allegations of the complaint there is no proof and not believable at all. Hence we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
9. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the complainant, no order as to cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No Order as to cost and compensation.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of September 2015.
Date of Filing: 28.08.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Sony. M. Baby. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Abrace Thomas. Service Manager, Apco Hyundai, Kakkavayal.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Repair Order. Dt:06.05.2014.
A2. Cash Invoice. Dt:24.05.2014.
A3. Lawyer Notice. Dt:31.05.2014.
A4. Postal Receipt.
A5. Acknowledgment Card.
A6. Reply Notice. Dt:25.06.2014.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Reply Notice. Dt:25.06.2014.
B2(a). Postal Receipt.
B2(b). Acknowledgment Card.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
