Date of filing:10.9.2013
Date of Disposal:5.2.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014.
C.C.No.154 OF 2013.
Between :
M.Satyanarayana S/o.Bulliachanna, 42 years, Hindu, Advocate, H.No.11-136, Opp:Bank of Baroda, K.S.Thota, Eluru – 534 003, Ejcjc.
….. Complainant.
And
1. Authorized Signatory, Vahan Motors Private Limited, Survey No.343/2,343/2a, Ramavarappadu Ring Road, Next to Volkswagen Show Room at Ramavarappadu Ring, Gunadala Village, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Vjcjc.
2. Vahan Motors Private Limited, Rep., by its Authorized Signatory, Regd. Office: Plot No.888, road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034, Hyderabad City Jcjc.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 23.1.2014 in the presence of complainant appearing in person and Sri D.V.S.Lokeswara Rao, Counsel for opposite parties and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant in person under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.53,116.50 ps with subsequent interest at 24% p.a., to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the loss sustained by him, to award costs of the complaint and for other reliefs.
1. The brief facts of the case which lead to filing the present complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Maruthi Swift car bearing No. AP 33 B 7117. The said vehicle is insured with Bharti Axa General Insurance Co., Ltd. Bangalore and the complainant has got valid driving licence. While so, on 14.4.2013 when the complainant was returning from Chandarlapadu Village, Krishna District to Eluru in the said car, it met with an accident at Chandarlapadu Village, Krishna District. The complainant informed the same to the insurance company through online who in turn recommended him to approach one Madhubabu at Vijayawada who is the Surveyor. Accordingly the complainant approached him and on his advice, the complainant handed over the car to the 1st opposite party for repairs on 17.4.2013. The 1st opposite party issued Repair Order and Vehicle Condition Inspection form bearing Sl.No.36346, dt.17.4.2013 with a promise to deliver the car after one week. But contrary to the same, the 1st opposite party delivered the car on 3.5.2013 without cashless scheme and without the original bills and old spare parts to the complainant and issued cash bill for Rs.53,116.50 ps and also forced the complainant to pay the said amount. Having no alternative, the complainant paid the said amount and took delivery of car. When the complainant asked about original bills and old spare parts, the 1st opposite party promised to send the same to complainant to Eluru address. But the 1st opposite party failed to comply with the same in spite of several demands made by the complainant in person and through the legal notice dt.21.6.2013. The 2nd opposite party issued reply notice dt.9.7.2013 and admitted that the ‘bills could not be issued at that point due to issues with our ERP system”. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their version admitting the ownership of complainant in respect of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP 33 B 7117 and handing over the same to them for repairs. But denied the rest of the allegations para wise and stated that the commitment of cashless scheme was dishonoured by Bharti Axa and not by 1st opposite party and in the absence of cashless scheme, the insurer will pay the amounts directly insured and the insured is required to pay the amount to 1st opposite party. It is further contended that the opposite parties has not promised to deliver the vehicle within one week and basing on the availability of spare parts from authorized Maruthi Distributor, they have delivered the car expeditiously and that they have returned the old spare parts of car to complainant. It is further contended that they have submitted Sales invoice and purchase invoices to the insurance company and basing on which the claim of complainant was settled on 17.5.2013. It is further contended that the parts replaced were genuine and brought from authorized Maruthi Distributors and that they did not commit any deficiency of service and that they forced the complainant to pay the amount only for the reason that the complainant demanded for delivery of car without receipt of insurance liability letter from Bharti Axa by opposite parties and finally prays to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments made in complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The authorized person on behalf of opposite parties by name Saibabu filed affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 in the first instance on behalf of opposite parties. While the matter is posted to 16.1.2014 for arguments, the opposite parties filed Memo of written arguments along with documents, which were marked as Ex.B6 to Ex.B14.
4. Perused the record and heard both sides.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in not handing over the purchase bills and old spare parts to the complainant?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
POINT NO.1:-
6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), there is no dispute with regard to ownership of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP 33 B 7117 by the complainant and the same is insured with the Bharti Axa General Insurance Co., Ltd under cashless scheme.
7. The brief case of the complainant is that the said Car was met with an accident on 14.4.2013 at Chandarlapadu Village, Krishna District and that immediately he informed the same to the insurance company who in turn advised to meet their Surveyor Madhubabu. The complainant on the advice of Surveyor, handed over the car to the 1st opposite party which is service center for repairs on 17.4.2013 under cashless scheme. But later the 1st opposite party failed to deliver the car within one week as promised by it and at last on 3.5.2013 delivered the car and issued cash bill for Rs.53,116.50 ps and forced the complainant to pay the same for delivery of car. Though the complainant informed that the car is insured under cashless scheme, the opposite parties did not hear his words and having no other alternative, he paid the amount of Rs.53,116.50 p.s. When the complainant asked about the purchase bills of spare parts and old spare parts, the opposite parties promised to send the same to complainant, but the opposite parties failed to send the same, which is nothing but deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. In this regard, the contention of opposite parties is that they have not promised to deliver the vehicle within one week and they delivered the vehicle expeditiously and that the complainant himself hurried for delivery of vehicle fully knowing that the insurance liability letter was not received by them and as such they delivered the car after payment of amount only.
8. In view of the above rival contentions, the first point that stood for consideration is that whether the opposite parties committed default in delivery of vehicle within time. According to complainant he handed over the car to the 1st opposite party on 17.4.2013 and the 1st opposite party promised to deliver the vehicle after repairs within one week, but failed to do so. On the other hand, the contention of opposite parties is that they have not promised to deliver the vehicle within one week and they delivered the same expeditiously. In this regard, perusal of Ex.B3/Ex.B6 Repair Order and Vehicle Condition Inspection Form dt.17.4.2013 discloses that the estimated delivery of date/time is 4.5.2013 and the estimated amount is Rs.45,000/-. But according to the complainant, the 1st opposite party delivered the vehicle on 3.5.2013 i.e. one day before the estimated date. In this regard, the complainant filed original of Ex.B3/Ex.B6 on 23.1.2014, which discloses that there is difference between Ex.B3/Ex.B6 and original of Ex.B6 filed by complainant. The original of Ex.B6 filed by complainant discloses that there is no mention about the estimated delivery date/time and amount. But as the original of Ex.B6 filed by complainant was not marked on behalf of complainant, we are not inclined to accept the contention of complainant.
9. The another point that stood for consideration is that whether the opposite parties forcibly obtained payment from complainant towards repairs of car. In this regard, the contention of complainant is that the opposite parties at the time of delivery of car demanded to pay the entire amount even though he informed that the car is insured with Bharti Axa General Insurance under cashless scheme and that he has no need to pay amount. On the other hand, the contention of opposite parties is that the complainant demanded for delivery of car knowing fully that the insurance liability letter was not received by them and as such they delivered the car after payment and subsequently the complainant received the amount from the Insurance company. In view of the rival contentions stated above, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has not filed any insurance policy before this Forum to ascertain whether the car of complainant was insured with the said insurance company. In the absence of any such proof, it is very hard to ascertain under what scheme the car is insured and what is the procedure that will be followed by the insurance company for payment of amount towards repairs. But a perusal of Ex.B5 Motor Repair Assessment cum Processing Sheet dt.17.5.2013 discloses that the insurance company has processed the claim of complainant for Rs.26,346/- by quoting the reason for non approval of remaining amount in remarks column. A further perusal of Ex.B5 discloses that the insurance company made the payment to the 1st opposite party. But there is no material on the record to show that the 1st opposite party has repaid the same to complainant. The complainant also not produced any proof with that regard. In this regard, it is open for the complainant to approach appropriate Forum against the insurance company for non approval of balance amount.
10. The main grievance of complainant in this case is that the 1st opposite party has not produced the original bills and old spare parts to him in spite of several demands made by him. In this regard, the 1st opposite party in its version in para No.5 stated that they have handed over the bills and spare parts to the complainant at the time of delivery itself. But on other hand, the 1st opposite party in reply to the notice issued by complainant, which is marked as Ex.A1 admitted that the invoices for work on the car of complainant could not be issued at that point of time due to issues with their ERP system although assurance was given that the same will be provided. Further as seen from Ex.A1, they only enclosed copies of sales invoice and invoices for parts procured, but not produced the original bills and there is no mention about return of old spare parts. Even as per the opposite parties, they purchased the spare parts from Maruthi Authorized Dealers and they are genuine. In support of its contention, the opposite parties got marked Ex.B12 i.e. two receipts issued by authorized Maruthi dealer for Rs.3,914/- and Rs.54/-. But a perusal of Ex.A1=Ex.B1/B13 discloses that the 1st opposite party charged Rs.22,833/- towards parts. When the 1st opposite party itself admitted that they charged Rs.22,833/- towards parts, the filing of only two bills raises any amount of doubt in the mind of complainant. Further the said Ex.B12 bills were filed at a later stage of proceedings and they do not contain the vehicle number of complainant etc., If they purchased the spare parts from Authorized dealer, the purchase bills for the remaining parts would be provided by the dealer. But the non production of original purchase bills to complainant insisted by complainant may create suspicion in the mind of complainant that the spare parts are original or not. Further the complainant is not in a position to understand the specific rate of each spare part as mentioned in Ex.A3 cash bill and how the opposite parties calculated the VAT Tax. Mere production of purchase invoice, sales invoice and two bills from authorized dealer is not sufficient and the opposite parties are liable to submit the original purchase bills for remaining parts. Further it is not the case of opposite parties that they submitted the purchase bills and spare parts to Insurance company. Further with regard to return of old spare parts, there is no mention about the same in the reply notice of opposite parties. There is also no proof with regard to the return of old spare parts to complainant. As such, the opposite parties by way of not producing the original purchase bills of spare parts and not handing over the old spare parts to complainant, to some extent committed deficiency in service. But as stated above, as there is no dispute with regard to the payment of amount, the complainant is not entitled for refund of amount of Rs.53,116.50 p.s, but entitled for compensation and costs. In our view, the amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and costs Rs.2,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
POINT No.2:-
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand rupees only) to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony besides costs of Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand rupees only) . The time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. The other claims of the complainant are hereby dismissed.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 5th day of February, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 M.Satyanarayana D.W.1 Sai Babu,
Complainant Authorized Person,
(by affidavit) of the 1st opposite party,
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 03.05.2013 Cash bill issued by opposite party.
Ex.A.2 21.06.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.3 09.07.2013 Reply notice.
For the opposite parties:-
Ex.B.1 03.05.2013 Cash bill issued by opposite party.
Ex.B.2 . . E.mail letter from Customer Relations Manager of the opposite
party at Bengaluru to the counsel for the opposite party.
Ex.B.3 17.04.2013 Photocopy of Repair Order and Vehicle Condition Inspection.
Ex.B.4 . . Photocopy of Motor Repair Assessment cum Processing Sheet.
Ex.B.5 . . List of Parts and labour.
Ex.B.6 17.04.2013 Photocopy of Repair Order and Vehicle Condition Inspection.
Ex.B.7 09.07.2013 Photocopy of courier receipt.
Ex.B.8 . . Two photographs showing the insurance companies tie up with
the Carz.
Ex.B.9 . . Specimen copy of Repair Order & Vehicle Condition Inspection
Form.
Ex.B.10 . . Specimen copy of Repair Order & Vehicle Condition Inspection
Form.
Ex.B.11 20.04.2013 Photocopy of Counter Sale Tax Invoice.
Ex.B.12 25.04.2013 Two counter sale tax invoice .
Ex.B.13 . . List of Parts and labour along with photocopy of cash bill.
Ex.B.14 . . Photocopy of Motor Repair Assessment cum Processing Sheet.
PRESIDENT
