Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/177/2012

V.Chandrasekaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Automobiles Solutions Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

G.Moorthi

06 Oct 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   01.08.2012

                                                                        Date of Order :   06.10.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.177/2012

FRIDAY THIS 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

V. Chandrasekaran,

S/o. Vaithilingam,

C7/2, Kalanjiyam,

Sriram Nagar 2^nd Street,

Perambur,

Chennai 600 039.                                                .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

The Manager,

TVS Automobile Solutions Limited,

New No.58, Eldams Road,

Teynampet,

Chennai 600 018.                                            .. Opposite party.

 

Counsel for Complainant           :   M/s. G. Moorthi         

Counsel for opposite party        :   M/s.T.K.Bhaskar  & others     

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

        The complainant submit that  he purchased a  Tata Indica Car bearing No.TN 25H 3567.  After purchasing the car the complainant approached the opposite party’s  representative for 24x7 service for benefits of attending the car when its break down on road or not in running condition etc.   The opposite party is authorized mechanic to attend within 30 minutes  and maximum one hour for such unfortunate happening.  The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.1250 per year for such service under old under Gold Card membership.   The complainant further state that on 23.1.2012 when the complainant was on the way to Thirupathi at about 1600 hours near Narayanavanam the gear got locked.  Immediately the complainant called to 04460002002 of the opposite party requested for assistance.   After a great difficulty one Mr. Anil attended the car and understood the location TTD Kalyanamandapam at Narayanavanam and the complaint was registered as No.TVSRAPO1120019. About 2000 hrs Mr.Suresh technician and another person came to the spot and introduced themselves that they are from MG Brothers from Thirupathi who has tie-up with opposite party and attended the fault and rectified the gear box problem and told  the complainant that the belt tension bracket is broken.    The complainant repeatedly requests to rectify the defects on payment.   But Mr. Anil who attended the complainant cell told that the car should be told towed to Thirupathi for rectification of defect for the complainant has to pay Rs.1500/- as towing charges.  The complainant explained that the minor defect of belt tension  break may be rectified even without the major tools except the ordinary tools readily available with the mechanic.   But the said Mr. Anil refused and went away along with mechanic thereby the complainant was put to great hardship. Thereafter the complainant issued letter dated 4.2.2012  and 23.2.2012 to the opposite party and issued  legal notice on 16.3.2012.  On 12.5.2012 the opposite party sent an evasive reply for which due rejoinder also sent on 8.6.2012.    As such the act of  the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party is  as follows:

      The opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite party state that the  complainant availed the membership card from the opposite party and become the member of 24x7 emergency service.  The opposite party only provides a help line service.   The opposite party had discharged its responsibility by putting an Authorized Service Provider i.e. an Engineer from the MG Brothers of Tirupathi thereby the service of the opposite party was over.  There shall be no amount of deficiency of service.  The opposite party further states that the complainant launched a complaint with the opposite party to a snag in the gear box.  The opposite party registered the complaint and assigned the complaint No.TVSRAPO1120019  and assigned M.G. Brothers Tirupathi the authorized service agent M.G. Brother went to the spot and gave immediate attention to the problem of the vehicle and detected breakage in belt tension bracket.  The authorized service provider advised the complainant that to take the vehicle to Tirupathi by towing.  The allegation that Mr. Anil and Siva from the opposite party compelled for towing is false.    Therefore nowhere in the terms and conditions of the scheme it has been spelt out that all major or minor problems will be repaired or rectified at the sport itself.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party filed and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2  marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.   The points for the consideration is: 

       Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

       towards mental agony with cost as prayed for?

 

5. ON POINT: -

       Heard both sides.  Perused the records.   The learned counsel for the complainant contended that he purchased a  Tata Indica Car bearing No.TN 25H 3567.  After purchasing the car the complainant approached the opposite party’s  representative for 24x7 service for benefits of attending the car when its break down on road or not in running condition etc.   The opposite party is authorized mechanic to attend within 30 minutes  and maximum one hour for such unfortunate happening.  The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.1250 per year for such service under old under Gold Care membership.    On 1.12.2011  due acknowledgment and old card with membership No.8428398007 also issued by the opposite party.  On 23.1.2012 when the complainant was on the way to Thirupathi at about 1600 hours near Narayanavanam the gear got locked.  Immediately the complainant called to 04460002002 of the opposite party requested for assistance.   After a great difficulty one Mr. Anil attended the car and understood the location TTD Kalyanamandapam at Narayanavanam and the complaint was registered as No.TVSRAPO1120019. About 2000 hrs Mr.Suresh technician and another person came to the spot and introduced themselves that they are from MG Brothers from Thirupathi who has tie-up with opposite party and attended the fault and rectified the gear box problem and told  the complainant that the belt tension bracket is broken.    The complainant repeatedly requests to rectify the defects on payment.   But Mr. Anil who attended the complainant cell told that the car should be told towed to Thirupathi for rectification of defect for the complainant has to pay Rs.1500/- as towing charges.  The complainant explained that the minor defect of belt tension  break may be rectified even without the major tools except the ordinary tools readily available with the mechanic.   But the said Mr. Anil refused and went away along with mechanic thereby the complainant was put to great hardship.  The complainant is a  heart patient had undergone angioplasty.  Even after repeated requests the opposite party neglected to attend the  minor fault.  Thereafter the complainant issued letter dated 4.2.2012  and 23.2.2012 to the opposite party and issued  legal notice on 16.3.2012.  On 12.5.2012 the opposite party sent an evasive reply for which due rejoinder also sent on 8.6.2012.  The act of the opposite party is amount to deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice for this the opposite party is liable to pay compensation.

6.    The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly the complainant availed the membership card from the opposite party and become the member of 24x7 emergency service.  The opposite party only provides a help line service.   The opposite party had discharged its responsibility by putting an Authorized Service Provider i.e. an Engineer from the MG Brothers of Tirupathi thereby the service of the opposite party was over.  There shall be no amount of deficiency of service.  But on careful perusal of the entire records the opposite party men  Anil went to the spot along with the Engineer and rectified the some defects in the gear box and identify get another defects of belt tension, break down.  It is not all the major defects also.  The opposite party further contended that the complainant launched a complaint with the opposite party to a snag in the gear box.  The opposite party registered the complaint and assigned the complaint No.TVSRAPO1120019  and assigned M.G. Brothers Tirupathi the authorized service agent M.G. Brother went to the spot and gave immediate attention to the problem of the vehicle and detected breakage in belt tension bracket.     The authorized service provider advised the complainant that to take the vehicle to Tirupathi by towing.  The allegation that Mr. Anil and Siva from the opposite party compelled for towing is false.   But it is not denied that the Anil of the opposite party has not went to the spot with Engineer.   Equally after attending a major default of snag in the gear box attending and default of Belt tension, break down is not such serious.  There  is no plea and evidence that such default shall be rectified no bills available on the spot proves that there is a deficiency of service.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite party is impleaded as unnecessary party the complainant ought to have impleaded M.G. Brothers the authorized service provider as a party non impleaded of service provider M.G. Brothers.   But on a careful perusal of the records  it is seen that the opposite party men namely Anil went to the site along with the Engineer and attended the fault. 

7.    The learned counsel for the opposite party cited a decision reported in Supreme Court of India

Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2012

 

Church of Christ Charitable Trust

..Vs..

M./s. Poonaiamman Education Trust

 

But on a careful perusal of the citation it is very clear that the citation are related to Civil suit nothing to do with the of deficiency of service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the  opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant and points are answered accordingly. 

          In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards mental agony and cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.     

            Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 6^th day  of  October  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 1.12.2011  - Copy of Ack. Given by opposite party for receiving cash.

Ex.A2-         -       - Copy of opposite party’s pamphlet.

Ex.A3-         -       - Copy of Gold Card given by opposite party.

Ex.A4- 4.2.2012    - Copy of letter sent by complainant to opposite  party.

Ex.A5- 6.2.2012    - Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A6- 23.2.2012 - Copy of second letter sent by Complainant to opp. party.

Ex.A7- 24.2.2012  - Copy Postal Receipt.

Ex.A8- 25.2.2012  - Copy of Ack.

Ex.A9- 16.3.2012  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A10- 16.3.2012         - Copy of Postal Receipt.

Ex.A11- 12.6.2012         - Copy of reply.

Ex.A12- 8.6.2012  - Copy of rejoinder notice.

Ex.A13- 8.6.2012  - Copy of Postal receipt.

Ex.A14- 11.6.2012         - Copy of Ack.

Opposite parties’ side document: -     

Ex.B1- 7.12.2011  - Copy of Membership Application Form signed by

                              complainant.

 

Ex.B2- 24.7.2012  - Copy of reply to the rejoinder sent to the complainant’s

                               counsel

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.