IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of June 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 265/2021 (Filed on 08/11/2021)
Complainant : Mahesh C.S S/o Sreedharan,
Chakkananickal House,
Elangulam P.O,
Kanjirappally, Kottayam.
(By Adv: Amalu Raju)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. TVS Motor Company Limited,
PB No.4, Haritha,,
Hozur - 635 109.
2. Spin T.V.S,
Vallikunnel Buildings,
Near St.Joseph Eye Hospital,
N.H 181, Kanjirappally - 686 507.
(By Adv: Louis.P. Alencherry)
O R D E R
SRI. MANULAL V.S, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a TVS Victor Disc motor cycle having 110 cubic capacity from the second opposite party on 26-11-2018. The second opposite party is the authorized dealer of first opposite party and first opposite party is the manufacturer of the motor cycle. It is alleged in the complaint that the vehicle was not performing normally and was not of standard quality. The major complaints are such as missing and other bodily sounds. Even after servicing at proper intervals at the authorized service centre of opposite parties, the defects still persisted and increased. On 5-04-2021 the vehicle was entrusted to the second opposite party to cure the defects of the vehicle. The second opposite party opened a job card on the same day itself and noted all the defects of the vehicle and received Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant as advance service charges and issued an acknowledgement to the complainant. It is promised by the second opposite party that the vehicle would be delivered to the complainant within 5 days. When the complainant enquired about the update of the service after the expiry of the promised date the second opposite party informed the complainant that the cylinder of the vehicle was given for boring and all other defects cured and as soon as the boring was over the vehicle would be delivered to the complainant. Later the second opposite party changed their earlier version and informed the complainant that the service delay was caused due to the unavailability of carburettor and other spare parts with the first opposite party. When the second opposite party failed to cure the defects within 3 months complainant was constrained to give a complaint to the first opposite party on 27-07-2021. After the said complaint the first opposite party on 21-07-2021, 30-07-2021, 31-07-2021 informed the complainant that the second opposite party cured the defects of the vehicle by replacing the carburettor, piston, cylinder and the valve and it is also informed that the total cost of the service is Rs.13,000/-. There had inordinate delay in repairing the vehicle. The delay in returning the vehicle after proper repairs to the complainant, which resulted in financial difficulties and mental agony is to be compensated appropriately. According to the complainant due to the delay in returning the vehicle he was not able to attend his job for 100 days and thereby caused to loose his income to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence this complaint is filed to reimburse Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
The first opposite party filed version stating that the second opposite party is the Dealer of first opposite party. The relationship between the second opposite party and the first opposite party is that on principal to principal basis. The complainant handed over the vehicle for repairing and servicing only after two years and four months after fresh delivery. At that time workshop attendant recorded the problems of valve and missing complaint and informed the complainant about the possible delay of arriving spare parts due to Corona pandemic lockdown and related absence of mechanics. The progress of the repairing of the vehicle being informed to the complainant over phone. On 31-7-2021 the second opposite party informed the complainant that the work of the vehicle was completed and the bill was Rs. 13,362/-. The complainant is not entitled for any reliefs. Being a frivolous allegation the complaint is only to be dismissed.
The second opposite party filed written version raising the same contentions of the first opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1 to A7. Witness of the second opposite party examined as DW1 and Exhibit B1 marked from the side of the second opposite party. Rijo Joseph who is the authorized signatory of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination.
The following issues have been taken for consideration based on the pleadings in the complaint and on the version and evidence on record :-
(1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? and (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief claimed for?
POINT Nos.1 & 2
The complainant entrusted his TVS Victor Disc motor cycle as the vehicle developed various problems such as missing and other bodily sounds to the second opposite party on 05-04-2021. Ext. A5 is the Registration Certificate, which shows that the complainant is the owner of the said vehicle. Ext.A1 is the acknowledgement card issued by the second opposite party in respect of the said vehicle. The letter dated 21/07/2021 to the first opposite party explaining the difficulties due to the non-delivery of the vehicle after repairs is marked as Ext.A2.
The opposite parties admitted that the complainant entrusted the vehicle for repair on 5-04-2021. It is also an admitted fact that there had some delay due to non-availability of the spare parts due to Covid pandemic lock down. The repairs were carried out as and when the complainant demanded. It is admitted in the deposition by DW1 if there is any defect then the vehicle would be delivered within two weeks after curing the defects. He further deposed before the commission that B1 muster roll does not contain the name and place of the establishment. He had not given any explanation for non production of the muster roll for the month of April 2021. He further deposed before the commission that the non-availability of the spare parts was not informed the complainant in writing. Though opposite party contended that they had informed the complainant regarding the non-availability of the spare parts over phone, neither in version nor in proof affidavit or in deposition they did not disclose the dates on which they informed the same to the complainant.
In the light of the above evidences we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is a self-employed business man and the non-availability of vehicle, the complainant obviously has sustained monetary loss. Certainly the complainant caused mental agony and it is to be compensated to meet the ends of justice.
In view of the discussion, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If not complied as directed, the amount will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of June, 2023
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Witness from the side of Opposite Parties
DW1 - Shojimon Lukose
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant
Ex. A1 - Acknowledgement card issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ext.A2 - Copy of complainant’s letter dated 21/07/2021
addressed to the 1st opposite party
Ext.A3 - Copy of E-mail communications from the Ist opposite party
Ext.A4 - Copy of Tax Invoice(cash receipt) dated 26/11/2018
for Rs.61,144/-
Ext.A5 - Copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle
Ext.A6 - Copy of Insurance Policy
Ext.A7 - Copy of Tax Licence issued from the Motor Vehicles Department
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Copy of Muster Roll
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
