Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/113/2022

S. TamilVendar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Service Manager, Automotive Manufactures Pvt., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. M. Senthil Kumar

18 Apr 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:21.02.2022

  Date of Reservation     :16.03.2023

  Date of Order              :18.04.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                             : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,             :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,      : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.113/2022

TUESDAY,THE 18^th DAY OF APRIL 2023

Mr. S. TamilVendan,

Aged about 36 years,

S/o. Saravanamuthu,

No.18-S3, 2^nd Floor,

Varadharajapet Main Road,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 094.                                                         .. Complainant.

 

-Vs-

The Service Manager,

Automotive Manufactures Private Limited, Chennai,

No.1, Alapakkam Road,

Bomadevi Nagar,

Gerugambakkam,

Chennai – 600 122.                                                      .. Opposite Party.

* * * * *

 

 

Counsel for the Complainant         : M/s. M. Senthil Kumar,

                                                         B. Sridhar, M.Madhankumar

 

Counsel for  Opposite Party          : M/s. D. Suriyanarayanan,                       

                                                        R. Indhumathi, L. Lakshmi

 

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the counsel for Complainant and the counsel for the Opposite Party this Commission delivered the following:

 

 

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-II, Thiru. S. Nandagopalan, B.Sc., MBA.,      

(i)     The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to refund the amount of Rs.8923/- estimated cost of the repair is done by the Opposite Party as a compensation for selling the defective wheel alignment and wiper and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, mental agony, loss of mental peace along with cost of Rs.30,000/-.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant is the owner of the vehicle namely Mahendra Bolero bearing registration No.TN 05 CA 5252 that ran above 40,000 kilometre, hence the Complainant decided to service the vehicle. On 20.10.2021 the Complainant handed over the said vehicle to the Opposite Party through his driver. Complainant submits that that the authorised person of the Opposite Party called and asked to furnish the list of repairing work that are as follows:

1. Alignment of the said vehicle for one side , 2. While the vehicle was crossing the 90 kilometre and the same was aligned , 3. The water wastage from the wiper glass , 4. The wiper water tank has been broken, 5. To change the turbo pipe and also general check up. The Complainant further submits that the Opposite Party did not rectify the repair work  immediately. After three days only the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that some materials were yet to receive then only the repair had to be done. Even at that time of handing over the vehicle, the Opposite Party has assured that the repair work will be done within three days. Due to the rain period the Complainant requested to carry the repair work immediately but the Opposite Party failed to comply. Due to the delay caused by the Opposite Party, the Complainant has taken the rental car for his office work. The Complainant further submits that on 23.10.2021 the vehicle was handed over by the Opposite Party driver by collecting a sum of Rs.8,923/- via Opposite Party swiping machine at about 08.18 p.m. After rectifying the repair work, while the Complainant was driving the car, he found out that the car wheel was not aligned and instead charged for the same for which the Complainant immediately informed the said defect to the Opposite Party. The Complainant submits that while he was driving the car to his native place and as such at that time wiper glass did not do the work, since the water has been fully storied inside of the car for full one night hours. The Complainant further submits that he informed all the defects with proof that the repair work was not carried properly. After accepting the mistakes the Opposite Party has re-issued the bill amount of Rs.7871/- by deducting the charges that were not carried. Hence the Complainant alleges that the Opposite Party has cheated by not carrying the work properly instead claimed the amount. The Complainant further submits that on 17.01.2022 the opposite has issued the letter to the Complainant stating that the small error has been committed in the billing. The Complainant submits that he has published this happenings in the Polimer news channel for which the Opposite Party threatened with dire consequences. Further the Complainant submits that he issued a legal notice on 06.12.2021 to the Opposite Party and the same has been received and did not give any reply till filling of this complaint.

II. Written Version filed by the  Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

2.     The Opposite Party states that it condemns and denies all the allegations and averments made by the complaint at the very outset and are shocked and agonised in the manner in which the Complainant has fabricated and weaved a story to cause hardship and injury to our institution through this complaint. It strongly objects to such baseless allegations levelled and claims made dismissing them as nothing but a figment of Complainant imagination. The Opposite Party states that on 20.10.2021 Complainant was called its Gerugambakkam authorised service station service engineer one Mr. Safiq and the said service engineer attended the Complainant's fault i.e car No. TN05 CA 5252, MAHINDRA BOLERO, B6 Model, and the car has completed the running 40000 kms and it has some repairs. The Opposite Party further states that on 20.10.2021 the Complainant was taken appointment to service his vehicle and repairs and confirmed through phone, one of its company driver was sent to Complainant’s  house and given job card, estimate bill and got the signature in the job card from Complainant and taken back the vehicle for service and the same was handed over to the service station. The Opposite Party submits that the service adviser Mr. Safiq attended the Complainants phone and noted all the complaints of the car majorly four issues in the car was stated by the Complainant, 1. Wheel Alignment, 2. Water Seepage through the wiper, 3. During high speed the car was vibrating, 4. To change the broken turbo hose and also the general services of 40000 Kms running moreover Complainant  asked to rectify all the defects within one day with our service adviser Mr. Safiq and its service adviser informed the Complainant clearly it is not possible to repair in a day, it would take a minimum time of three days for repairs and changing of spare parts if any. The Opposite Party  further states that the above said service adviser further informed the Complainant, about checking of car condition by its mechanic and gave his opinion on the car issues. Since the car had run for 40,000 kms, the tires were worn out, requiring a change of new tires but the Complainant refused to replace the tires and informed only to align with the present tires along with the other 3 issues informed to the service engineer. Our service engineer informed the Complainant that it would take 3 to 5 days to get the spare parts from the factory depending on the availability of the spare parts in the warehouse.

3.     The Opposite Party further states that the Complainant did not consider the advices for carrying the repairs on car by of its service engineer and adviser and left the car for carrying general services and wheel alignment and paid the pre invoiced bill amount of Rs. 8923/- accordingly its service staff carried the repairs under general services, changed engine oil, break oil and inspected all fittings and carried wheel alignment completed the work in 3 days and the car was ready for delivery on 23.10.2021. The Opposite Party further states that after taking delivery of the vehicle the Complainant had driven for test drive and raised an issue about alignment and wiper. Since the Complainant was insisting on delivering his car immediately and left with no other option, its staff had been forced to deliver the vehicle, without finishing some of the works such as replacing the spare parts but delivered with road worthy condition. Further, when the Complainant was complaining its team about alignment issues, on verifying from its end it was found that the service adviser Mr. Safiq was absent on that day i.e., 23.10.2021 due to his personal reason. Hence, the service centre head came and reduced the alignment charges of Rs.1,052/- from the pre-invoice bill amount of Rs.8,923/- and issued the final bill amount of Rs.7,871/- to the Complainant. The Opposite Party further states that the Wheel alignment could not be done due to the tires being worn out and required to change new tires but Complainant not approved and also the non availability of our service adviser Mr. Safiq. Hence accepted and deducted the amount of Rs.1052/- from the previous pre invoice bill amount of Rs.8,923/- and sent Rs.7871/- as the final bill to the Complainant whatsapp number alongside Opposite Party confess that the pre invoice is an estimated expenses on the said repairs and it is not the final bill. Further if the car repairs bill falls less than the pre invoice bill. The company also returns the money to its customers. The procedure for raising the pre- invoice is to avoid payment denial from the customers. In this case, its centre head was ready to service or would return the money of Rs.1052/-. The Opposite Party avers that they are not liable to refund the amount as claimed by the Complainant, because all the complaints were attended as per the pre invoice, except the wheel alignment and wheel alignment charges already refunded to the Complainant. Hence the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation and pleased to dismiss this complaint. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

III.      The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Written Arguments,  in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A-1 to A-6. The Opposite Party had submitted his proof affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Party documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-13.

IV. Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

 

 

POINT NO. 1 :-

4.        On careful perusal of Complainant averments it is noticeable that the Complainant vehicle namely Mahendra Bolero bearing registration No.TN 05 CA 5252 that ran above 40,000 kilometre was given for service on 20.10.2021 to the Opposite Party for the complaints to be carried as follows 1. Alignment of the vehicle, 2. Vibration while the vehicle was crossing the 90 kilometre, 3. The water wastage from the wiper glass, 4. The wiper water tank has been broken , 5. To change the turbo pipe and also general check up as seen in Ex.B-3 i.e Complainant vehicle service booking form filed by the Opposite Party. As per Ex.A-3 the pre invoice copy dated 23.10.2021 the Opposite Party charged Rs.8,923/- for the work they carried on towards the Complainant vehicle and it is admissible that the Complainant paid the respective charges of Rs.8,923/- to the Opposite Party while taking the delivery of the vehicle dated 23.10.2021 expecting that all the repair works were done. In contrast, Complainant contended that the Opposite Party did not rectify the above said repair work immediately, moreover Complainant alleges that the Opposite Party failed to carry out the vehicle repair work properly according to the Complainant requirements. The Complainant avers that while doing the test drive he found out that the vehicle was not aligned instead they charged for the same in the invoice dated 23.10.2021 subsequently informed about the alignment issue to the Opposite Party incharge and later they accepted their mistake and issued a revised bill of Rs.7871/- dated 25.10.2021 as found in Ex.B-10. Henceforth as per Ex.A-4 & Ex.B-12 i.e the Demand Draft No.084712 for Rs.1052/- the document marked by both the Complainant and Opposite Party is the difference amount that has been charged excessively by the Opposite Party. It is pertinent to note that a reply letter from the Opposite Party i.e Ex.A-2 & Ex.B-13 dated 17.01.2022 admitting that a small error and mistake happened during the billing hence rectified the mistake and directed the staff to issue a fresh bill of Rs.7871/- and also the balance amount of Rs.1052/- kept in the Complainants ID account alongside mentioned that DD has been taken in favour of the Complainant name for the said amount.

5.        In this present case on careful observations of both the Complainant and the Opposite Party submissions and their materialistic evidence alongside considering the sequence of happenings this commission is of a considered view that the Opposite Party failed to rectify the repair works as requested by the Complainant moreover Opposite Party charged excessively for the works they did not carry. Furthermore the Opposite Party themselves admitted their mistake and rectified their invoice only after the Complainant addressed the issue, subsequently the Opposite Party arranged DD for the difference amount by accepting their error is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the Complainant in part for the mental agony suffered by the Complainant due to Opposite Party deficiency of service. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

Points Nos. 2 & 3:-

6.        As discussed and decided in  Point No.1,  that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service, the Opposite Party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards cost of this litigation. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

     In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of this litigation to the Complainant within 8 weeks from the  date of receipt of this order, failing which a sum of Rs.10,000/-  shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum  from the date of this order till the date of realisation.

 

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 18^th of April 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                         MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1		ICICI Bank Pay slip
Ex.A2	17.01.2022	Copy of the letter from the Opposite Party
Ex.A3		Copy of the bill issued by the Opposite Party
Ex.A4		Copy of the demand draft from the Opposite Party regarding for detecting amount
Ex.A5	06.12.2021	Copy legal notice issued by the Complainant along with the postal receipt
Ex.A6		Copy of RC Book

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

Ex.B1	14.12.2021	Letter of Authorization
Ex.B2	22.12.2021	Reply to the legal Notice dated 06.12.2021 with return cover.
Ex.B3	20.10.2021	Booking of Complainant’s vehicle service
Ex.B4	20.10.2021	Mahindra Vehicle Inventory Form
Ex.B5	20.10.2021	Manual Job Slip and computer-generated job card with Acknowledgement of service by the Complainant by singing on the job card
Ex.B6	20.10.2021	Warrant parts indent
Ex.B7	20.10.2021	Pre-invoice Bill
Ex.B8	20.10.2021	Additional Approved form
Ex.B9	23.10.2021	Out pass and attendance register of the service Manager
Ex.B10	25.10.2021	Final Bill for the service
Ex.B11		Final bill amount sent to Complainant what’s app number in the ledger account
Ex.B12	05.01.2022	DD.No.084712  drawn in favour of the Complainant
Ex.B13	17.02.2022	Letter of intimation to the Complainant with acknowledgement

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT