DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 24th day of September 2021
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon.V President
: Smt.Vidya.A, Member Date of Filing: 22/01/2020
CC/13/2020
Rinod A
S/o.Unnikrishnan,
Ambaladath House
Choorakkode PO – 679 336
Vallapuzha
Palakkad District - Complainant
(By Adv.V.C.Janardhanan)
Vs
1.The Works Manager
Indus Motors Co.Pvt.Ltd.
Thekkumuri, Perinthalmanna Road
Mele Pattambi -679 303
2.The Managing Director
M/s.Indus Motors Co.Pvt.Ltd.
Regd.Office : Indus House,
P.B.No.923, Chakkorathukulam,
West Hill, Kozhikkode 673 005
(By Adv.Kamesh.J) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Shri.Vinay Menon V., President
1. Case of the complainant is that his car met with an accident while in the custody and charge of the opposite parties. Eventhough the opposite parties carried out the repairs and replacement of defective parts, he was aggrieved under various heads. Complaint was filed on the cause of action as stated in paragraph 21 of the complaint, which is as follows:
“21. The aggregate effect of the above deficiency/defects is the diminution and denudation of realizable prospective value of the Motor Car by way of use, esteem, exchange and market value realizable by this Complainant on re-sale now and hereafter.The prospective/presumptive loss is to be fastened on the Opposite Parties who are liable, accountable and responsible directly, jointly and vicariously therefor.” (sic)
2. This follows the essence of pleading raised by the complainant in paragraph 12 of the complaint.
“12. The aggregate effect of the above instance is the loss of resale value of the Motor Car in its immediate life cycle now and hereafter for which both the Opposite Parties are directly, jointly and vicariously liable and accountable. Therefore, this Complainant seeks of the Opposite Parties to compensate him for the presumptive/future loss conservatively estimated at Rs. 1,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH only), or in the alternative swap the vehicle in question in exchange, with a similar vehicle of age, quality and performance, whichever option is preferable to the Opposite Parties.”(sic) .
3. The complainant sought for appropriate orders directing the opposite parties
“a) To direct the Opposite Parties to make good the loss(conservatively estimated) of Rs. 1,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH ONLY) @ Bank Rate prevalent until settlement, that is certain to be fastened on the Complainant, over the life of the vehicle, on account of the denudation/depreciation in value of the vehicle No. KL–52–K–3355 for reasons of the freak accident caused by the staff of the workshop/Work Centre of the Opposite Parties, while the same is under the running repairs and in the custody, control and management of the Opposite Parties,” (sic)
4. Upon going through the complaint on 16/9/2021, we directed the counsels to address the preliminary issue “Whether apprehension of loss of Rs. 100,000/- at the time of selling the car would give rise to the cause of action?”
Eventhough we directed the counsels to argue at a future date both the counsels expressed willingness to argue on the issue then and there itself. Hence, counsels were heard.
5. Counsel for the complainant gave an impressive list of 9 reasons as to why the complaint was filed and why the issue should be held in the affirmative.
1. Chances of a future dispute that might be fomented against the complainant, that might leave him vulnerable to claims from strangers, due to the accident that occurred.
2. Accident occurred while it was in the custody and control of the opposite parties.
3. Presence of deemed liability.
4. If the complaint is not filed at present, the complainant would lose a chance of examination of vehicle.
5. Details of the accident was not given to the complainant.
6. Parts replaced does not adhere to standard and are inferior in quality.
7. Surveyor’s report is suspicious in nature, especially considering its dates and serial numbers.
8. Presumptive loss would eventually turn out to be the actual loss with the passage of time.
9. Chances of making O.P. liable dissipates with time.
6. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that at the time of filing of the complainant, the complainant had no cause of action, that the car did not suffer from any defects and that the complainant would not be shorn off any rights if the car suffered due to any reason arising out of the accident in the hands of the opposite parties and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
7. A reading of the pleadings of the complainant would go far to show that the car in question is not suffering from any complaint at the time of filing of the complaint. The complainant apprehends that the car would fetch only a lower value at the time of resale. These are clear from a reading of the paragraphs cited from the complaint. A claim of presumptive nature as can be seen from the complaint cannot be overwhelmed by the arguments raised by the complainant, which incidentally dwelled about events that may arise in the future. At the time of filing of the complaint, the complainant had no plea that he has suffered in any manner due to any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. Arguments that carry weight are the 6th argument and 7th argument relating to replacement with substandard parts and suspicious nature of the Surveyors Report. But as regards these contention he has no pleadings whatsoever in the complaint that forms part of or would give rise to a cause of action.
9. The aforesaid being our observation, we hold that the complaint lacks a justiciable cause of action. The preliminary issue is found against the complainant. The complaint is dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of September, 2021.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Forwarded by/By order,
Senior Superintendent
Fair copy on: 8/10/2021
Despatched on:
