Date of filing : 09.02.2017
Date of order : 21.09.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L. MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
WEDNESDAY THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 2/2017
Thiru. G. Ranganathan,
S/o. Late. Gopal,
No.184, Melandai Street,
Serkadu Village and Post,
Katpadi Taluk,
Vellore District – 632106. …Complainant
Amendment carried as per the order as
in CMP No. 33/2017, dated: 03.10.2017.
-Vs-
1. The Proprietor / Manager,
Magalakshmi Bajaj,
Authorized Service Centre for Bajaj Auto Ltd.,
No.42 Chittoor Main Road,
Opp. To Odai Pillayar Koil,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore – 632006.
2. The Regional Manager,
Bajaj Auto Ltd.,
No.6, Habibullah Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. …Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant : Thiru. G. Kalaimani
Counsel for first opposite party : Thiru. R. Arun Prasath
Second opposite party : Set exparte on 14.6.2018
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L.PRESIDENT
The complainant has been filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation damages and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the litigation expenses.
1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant has a Bajaj Motor cycle bearing Registration No: TN-23-AE-6981. The first opposite party is an authorized service centre for Bajaj Auto Ltd. The second opposite party is the regional manager for Bajaj Auto Ltd. The complainant used to send his motor cycle for service to the company’s authorized service centres only. Accordingly, on 11.01.2017 he handed over his motor cycle to the first opposite party for some minor repairs. The first opposite party service men checked the motor cycle and noted that 1.The Regulator, D.C. Assembly set, 2. Bajaj DTS SI-SAE-20 W and 3. The Oil Filter are to be replaced with new spares, the complainant accepted the same. On the very same day at about 7.00 P.M. the opposite party represented that all mechanic defects were rectified and the new spare parts mentioned above were also replaced. Accordingly, the complainant came back at about 6.45 P.M. on 11.01.2017 and he was asked to pay the bill amount to the first opposite party for the replacement of the aforesaid spare parts and accordingly he paid and received the acknowledgment. He paid a sum of Rs.1,273/- and he took delivery of his vehicle around 7.00 P.M on 11.01.2017. After delivery he parked his vehicle to his house. The next day on 12.01.2017 evening at about 4.30 P.M he took his vehicle for his business to go to Vellore. On the way to Vellore town at Katpadi to Vellore main road in Thottapalayam his vehicle suddenly stopped and the engine stopped functioning. Immediately the complainant brought some motor mechanic for starting his vehicle but the mechanic tried their and found that the spare parts No.1, 2,3 mentioned above are not replaced and because of the this the engine was not functioning properly. Thus he took a load auto and took his vehicle to first opposite party service centre and narrated the facts to mechanic team and also asked why they did not replace the spare parts No.1,2,3. As a consumer the complainant suffered too, much mental and physical agony, torture and loss of money. The aforesaid acts of the first opposite party’s mechanic act are proves that act of high handed, unlawful, cheating, carelessness and negligence and amounts breach of contract. The above said first opposite party’s service centre was represented by first opposite party and controlled by the second opposite party. Hence, the second opposite party is vicariously liable for the acts of the first opposite party. On 12.01.2017 he was threatened and criminally intimidated and also tried to assault him in a bad manner. Hence, he dropped his motor cycle in the said service station itself and returned to his house. The next day, on 13.01.2017 evening his vehicle was given delivery and at that time also the old spare parts were not returned to him. Hence the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 13.01.2017. The first opposite party gave a reply notice dated 25.01.2017 with false and baseless allegation. Hence the complainant filed this complaint.
2. The written version of first and second opposite parties are as follows:
The opposite party denied all the allegations set out by the complainant. He has filed this complaint with ulterior and sinister motives. The allegation made in the complainant are all invented, imaginary and highly defamatory, Actually, on 12.01.2017, the complainant took his vehicle to the first opposite party's Service Station at the closing hours of 7.00 pm. It is utterly false to state that the complainant took his vehicle by engaging load Auto etc., On 12.01.2017 at closing hours the complainant came to service station by riding his vehicle and represented the technician that the engine stop and when he reduces the speed. Technician explained that the “Slow Speed" to be adjusted and it will be rectified after the adjustment of carburetor screw and told there is nothing to worry and they will do the needful. When he explained, the complainant without hearing the explanation suddenly picked up quarrel with the Technicians and attempted to attack the technician. Technicians gave all respect to the complainant, even though, the complainant without any justifications uttered filthy language towards them and left his vehicle in angry mood and went away. Thereafter, the technician solved the "Slow Speed" complaint. On 13.01.2017, the complainant came to service center at 1.30 P.M. and took back his vehicle. Technician handed over his vehicle along with the old spares which were already replaced on 11.01.2017. The complainant asked to the technicians and told them that he was in frustrated mood and explained that is the reason for his behaviour on the day before. There is no breach of contract, negligence, cheating and carelessness on the part of the opposite party his service. The opposite party served to the complainant with utmost good faith. It’s false that he states he was threatened and criminal intimidated and also tried to assault him in bad manner by staffs, are all invented and vexatious and highly defamatory. On 13.01.2017 technicians handed over the old spares which were already replaced on 11.01.2017. Further, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 13.01.2017 to the first opposite party containing false, frivolous and fabricated, imaginary allegations with an ulterior and sinister motives in order to make illegal gain from the first opposite party. There is no iota of truth in the allegations stated in the complaint. There is no cause of action in the complaint. The first opposite party sent a reply dated 25.01.2017 to the complainant stating his objections for all the allegations. The complainant wantonly and deliberately gave a false complaint and also added the second opposite party without any justifications and he acted so to degrade the reputation of the Service Centre before the public and also before the Bajaj Auto Ltd., Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss.
3. On receipt of this notice from this Hon’ble Commission. The second opposite party did not appear, several opportunities given, the opposite party called absent set exparte.
4. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. Proof affidavit of first opposite party filed. Documents not filed. Written arguments of both sides filed. Oral argument of first opposite party heard.
5. The Points that arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
6. POINT NOS.1 & 2: The allegation of the complainant is that the complainant is owner of the motor vehicle bearing Registration No: TN-23-AE-6981 and he has given his vehicle for service on 11.01.2017 for replacing certain spare parts in his vehicle. After servicing his vehicle, he took the vehicle to his home. The next day at about 4.30 pm he took the vehicle to go to Vellore and on the way to Vellore town near Thottapalayam his vehicle suddenly stopped and the engine stopped functioning. Hence immediately the complainant brought some nearby motor mechanic to start his motor cycle but all in vain. Therefore, he took a load auto and he took his vehicle to the first opposite party’s service centre. The allegation of the complainant is that spare parts which are said to have been replaced on 11.01.2017 at time of service were actually not replaced by the first opposite party. Therefore, the vehicle broke down and further when he handed over the vehicle for service, the service man of the opposite party misbehaved and used filthy language and also threatened the complainant. Therefore, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party and the second opposite party is the supervisor of the first opposite party, therefore they are also responsible for the acts of the first opposite party vicariously. Per contra the opposite party contented that it is true that the complainant brought his vehicle on 12.01.2017 at closing hour. The opposite party politely explained that “Slow Speed’ to be adjusted there is no big problem and that can be corrected. The opposite party unnecessarily picked up a quarrel with the technician of the first opposite party and left the vehicle with the first opposite party and went home. On 13.01.2017 the complainant came to the service centre at 1.30 pm and took back his vehicle. The first opposite party also handed over the old spare parts which was replaced on 11.01.2017. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party did not replace the spare parts on 11.01.2017 therefore the vehicle stopped midway. For which the complainant did not produce any material evidence or any documents before this honourable court to substantiate his claim. Further he also raised an issue that the first opposite party has misbehaved with the complainant and threatened the complainant with dire consequences and used filthy languages against the complainant. Admittedly the complainant did not file any complaint before the police or any other authority and he has not produced any documents to that effects nearly because we did not find any supporting documents to substantiate his averment in the complaint. Therefore, the complainant fails to prove his case. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no cost. Hence, these Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
7. Point No.3: In Point Nos.1 and 2, we have decided that the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. This Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.
8. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 21st September 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAIANNT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1-11.01.2017 – The service centre bill of the first opposite party
Ex.A2-13.01.2017 - Office of the legal notice
Ex.A3-25.01.2017 - The served copy of the reply notice
Ex.A4 - Copy of the RC book of the vehicle bearing registration No. TN-
23-AE 6981
Ex.A5 - Copy of the insurance policy of the vehicle
Ex.A6 - Copy of the Driving License of the petitioner
LIST OF FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS: ..Nil..
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
