Date of Filing       :  24.10.2018

                                                                                     Date of Disposal  :  23.05.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT @ CHENGALPATTU

PRESENT: THIRU.   U.KASIPANDIAN, B.A., M.L.,    .….  PRESIDENT

                   THIRU. M.JAWAHAR, B.A. L.L.M.,           …..  MEMBER-I  

CC.No.107/2018

THIS TUESDAY THE 23^rd DAY OF MAY 2023

M/s. Parthiban Indane Gas Agencies,

Rep by its Proprietor Mrs. Tamilselvi Natarajan,

No.57, P.V.Vaithilingam Road,

Old Palavaram,

Chennai – 43.                                                                                            .......Complainant.

//Vs.//

1. TVS. MOBILITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,

No.13, By-Pass Road,

Poonnamallee,

    Chennai –50.

2. ND Body Works,

Rep.  by its Proprietor Mr. David,

No.5/142, Aarambakkam Road,

Padappai,

Kancheepuram District – 601 301.                                                 ......Opposite parties.                                                         

Counsel for the complainants                :  M/s. T.Thanigaivel, Advocates.

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party         :  M/s. M.Poornachandirika, Advocates.

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party        :  Ex-parte (dt.11.02.2019).

This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 08.05.2023, in the presence of M/s. T.Thanigaivel, Advocates, for the complainant, M/s. M.Poornachandirika, Advocates for the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party was called absent and set Ex-parte on 11.02.2019 and having perused the documents and evidences of complainant side and heard oral argument of both parties, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. U.KASIPANDIAN, PRESIDENT.

1.       This complaint is filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties seeking direction, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,39,844/- towards financial loss, mental agony, hardship and suffering caused due to the negligence and deficiency of service to the complainant.

2.         Brief averments  in the complaint is as follows:-

            The complainant gas agency is serving about 20,500 numbers of gas connections in their jurisdictional area. The cylinders are transported by Lorries which are specially built or modified for stocking the cylinders (both filled and empty). The 1^st opposite party agreed to provide an Ashok Leyland vehicle model 1616IL 4330MM. The 1^st opposite party was further offered that they would cover up the registration, insurance expense and body alteration expense, works on payment from the above agency. The 1^st opposite party was also further explained that the subject vehicle has to be modified in a form which would be carrying 306 numbers of domestic 14.2kg gas cylinders. An offer was made by the first opposite party by 24.07.2015. The quotation was given by the first opposite party stating Rs.15.50 Lakhs is the cost of the vehicle and an additional cost of Rs.1.27 Lakhs for covering of registration expenses of Rs.23,000/- insurance expense of Rs.30,000/- and body alteration expenses of Rs.74,000/- so for a total amount of Rs.16.77 lakhs. A sum of Rs.8 lakhs was paid to the first opposite party through M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd on 31.08.2015 for which receipt and acknowledgement was given. A sum of Rs.23,000/- was paid by cash on 28.08.2015, on 31.08.2015, Rs.30,000/- was paid vide cheque no.734876 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Pallavaram Branch for insurance coverage. As instructed by the first opposite party, a sum of Rs.75,000/- was paid to the second opposite party towards the cost of body alteration works vide NEFT No.P15101979289624 dated 19.09.2015 through Syndicate Bank, Pallavaram Branch. The second opposite party is engaged in vehicle body building and alteration works. The workshop is located at No.5/142, Aarambakkam Road, Padappai, Kancheepuram District, Pin - 601 301. Both the opposite parties failed to fulfill the required service. Both the opposite parties caused defects, delay and instead of providing the vehicle as per specifications, the vehicle was modified in a hap-hazard manner. Thus, the opposite parties creating further problems to the complainant. The following are the major defects in service:

1. Instead of painting the vehicle in Red color, it was painted in white color by the second opposite party. When this defect was brought to the knowledge of the first opposite party, repainting was carried out by the first opposite party causing inordinate delay in the delivery of the vehicle.
2. The body alteration works in the vehicles were not done as per the specifications laid down by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Normally body alteration will be done in such a manner that 306 domestic cylinders could be snuggled into the vehicle. But the body modification of the complainant’s vehicle was out of proportion and out of normal standard measurements.
3. The marking on the display-boards on either side of the vehicles and the rear side of the vehicle were not meeting the specifications of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
4. The wooden plank works in the inner body of the vehicle were not done in according to the specifications of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The first opposite party requested the complainant to complete the work through some other agency. They also undertook to reimburse the actual cost for the said wooden plank works. The complainant gas agency completed that work through outside workshop at the cost of Rs.18,800/- and that cost is not so far paid by the first opposite party.

Because of the above reasons and deficiency in service, there was a dely of 15 day in registering the vehicle with IOCL Plant, Attipattu, Ennore on 29.02.2016, the vehicle was taken to the workshop at Padappai owned by the second opposite party. The officials of the second opposite party promised to complete the modification works within seven days. But due to their negligence and deficiency of service, the vehicle was released on 19.03.2016. A further payment of Rs.18,000/- was made to the second opposite party for completing the second modifications by means of Syndicate Bank cheque, Pallavaram Branch on 15.03.2016. When the complainant went for first check, they were charged Rs.12,000/- on the ground that they reported after due date. Thus, there was a severe deficiency in service. Total Rs.10,57,419/- The Complainant was promised by the first opposite party to pay the damages. But on 23.08.2018 the first opposite party paid a part amount of Rs.17,575/- They promised to make the balance payment of Rs.10,39,844/- by November 2016. Thereafter they were keeping the matter in a lull.

3. The brief contention of written version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows:-

            The averments made in paragraph 3 of Complaint are not to the knowledge of this opposite party and hence are not adverted to. Suffice to state that since the complainant is carrying out a commercial activity and is running a business of gas agency, the same does not come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and accordingly the complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission. The complainant approached this opposite party at its Poonamalee Branch during July, 2015 with an intention to buy a vehicle of Ashok Leyland Vehicle Models 1616iL and 4330 MM Wheel Base. It is emphatically denied by this opposite party that they had agreed for body alteration expenses as this opposite party is only in the business of sale of Ashok Leyland vehicles and chassis and after sales services and is not engaged in the Body building activities and hence the question of bearing the body alteration expenses by this opposite party does not arise and the said allegations made by the complainant are not only concocted but are bereft of truth. The allegation that this opposite party gave a quotation for body alteration expenses for Rs.74,000/- is denied by this opposite party. The complainant has made payment of Rs.30,000/- vide the cheque No.734886 (wrongly stated in the complaint as 734876) directly to The New India Assurance Company. Opposite party is not aware to whom the complainant has paid cashof Rs.23,000/- towards registration. Copy of the said specifications was handed over to the 1^st opposite party is also denied. This opposite party is not aware of the transaction or involved in between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party. This opposite party has not given any quotation for payments to the 2^nd opposite party. This opposite party is not engaged in the body building and accordingly the allegations made by the complainant. The 1^st opposite party has accepted the averment made in paragraph 13(d) as true and on goodwill nature and better relationship with customer, the 1^st opposite party guided the complainant to complete the wooden plank work through some outside agency and undertook to reimburse the actual cost for the same. The complainant has not clearly spelt out in what manner this opposite party has been negligent and caused deficiency in service aside from making bald untenable allegations/ statements. The complainant has not adduced documentary evidences for the alleged loss of loads, loss of commission, bills and tickets for travelling expenses, and the calculation for compensation towards the alleged mental pain and sufferings. The complainant being fully aware of the fact that al the faults and various acts of commission/ omission are only by the 2^nd opposite party and that there is no fault on the part of this opposite party, the payment made by this opposite party to the complainant has been mis-understood and misconstrued as if this op has agreed to pay compensation claimed by him which is purely based on conjectures and against the true facts. This opposite party more so totally denied the alleged date payment of amount on 23.08.2018, regarding the admission by this opposite on the deficiency and made a partial payment, and the same is totally contrary to the real facts.

4.         After receipt of notice, the 2^nd opposite party was called absent and set Ex-parte on 11.02.2019 and this Commission have decided to dispose of the complaint on merits in the absence of the 2^nd opposite party.

5.         In order to prove the case, proof affidavits have been filed by the complainant and the 1^st opposite party as their evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 & Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked.  Written argument of both filed and also heard oral argument.

6.         At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Commission are:-

1.         Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2.         Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

3.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

4.         To what other reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

7.         Point No.1:-              The complainant has been residing within the territorial limits of this commission. Both the opposite parties are also carrying on business within the territorial limits of this commission. Therefore, entire cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this commission. The Relief sought for in the complaint is only a sum of Rs.10,57,419/- which is well below the pecuniary limit of this commission on the date of filing of this complaint. The complaint is filed in respect of a vehicle purchased on 24.07.2015. According to the complainant the opposite party agreed to incorporate body alteration work vide Ex.A1 dated 24.07.2015, making the vehicle suitable to carry 306 LPG cylinders of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Such alteration should be carried out in accordance with the specification provided by the Indian Oil Corporation. According to the complainant the 1^st opposite party undertook to deliver the fully modified road-ready vehicle on or before 15.09.2015. But there was a delay of 15 days. The modified vehicle was delivered on 29.02.2016 and the 2nd opposite party collected a further sum of Rs.18,000/- on 15.03.2016. The 1^st opposite party paid a part compensation of Rs.17,575/- on 23.08.2016. This is the last transaction between the complainant and the opposite party. The present complaint had been filed on 24.10.2018. The 1^st opposite party’s counsel contented that Ex.A11 is the letter sent by the opposite party along with a cheque for Rs.17,575/- to the complainant. The cheque was admittedly deposited by the complainant on 01.09.2016. Therefore the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 01.09.2018. In the present case, the complaint has been filed on 24.10.2018. According to section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the district forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. However a complaint may be entertained after two years if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. In the present case, the complainant has not taken any miscellaneous petition to condone the delay, even though, there was an apparent delay of 54 days. Hence the present complaint is barred by limitation prescribed under section 24(A)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. Since the complaint is not maintainable, there is no necessity to render any finding on points 2-4.

8.    In the result, the complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation. No order as to costs.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 23^rd day of May 2023.

       Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-

   MEMBER-I                                                                                                PRESIDENT

List of document(s) filed by the complainant(s):-

List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

List of documents filed by the 2^nd opposite party:-

• Nil –

     Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                PRESIDENT