Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

cc/210/2012

N. Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Varun Motors Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

T. Kantha Rao

09 Jul 2015

ORDER

                  Reg. of the Complaint:11-07-2012                                                                                                                                      Date of Order:09-07-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

THURSSDAY, THE 09^TH DAY OF JULY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.210/2012

 

BETWEEN:

Nakkana Satish Kumar S/o late Madar,

Hindu, aged 42 years, R/at Q.No.840/B,

Sector-2, Ukkunagar, Visakhapatnam.

…Complainant

AND:

Varun Motors Pvt., Ltd., Authorised Maruthi Suziki Dealer,

Rep. by its Manager, D.No.88, Block-D, Srinagar,

Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

…Opposite Parties

 

This case coming on 09-07-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of SRI G.PARVATHESWARA RAO, Advocate for the Complainant, and of                                     SRI D.V.S.SOMAYAJULU, Advocate for the Opposite Party, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

 

ORDER

 (As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)                                                                              

1. The Complainant filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party, directing the Opposite Party to replace the new Car to the complainant, for compensation and costs.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a car bearing No.AP 31 BF 5598, 2 years back for Rs.4,70,000/- and using  with utmost care though the free servicing were completed by paying servicing charges  on higher rate on 16-05-2012, he gave his above  car to OP service centre on paid servicing. Inspite of laps of two years, he used the car for 5000 kilometers only. That on 16-05-2012, he handed over his car to OP service centre  and it was damaged as his car was hit by another car due to brake failure  of that car according to the OP’s letter addressed to the complainant dated 17-05-2012.
3. It is further case of the complainant since purchase of the car, he has taken very much care and almost all avoiding journey to avoid damages and keep up in good condition for a long time but due to suspense and negligence of OP, it was damaged hence, he has no interest to ply the car which was involved in the accident and got damaged in the hands of OP in which OP is totally responsible. Though he contacted OP over phone who answered irresponsibly and on that he got issued notice but there was no response, as such the acts of the OP comes under the deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.
4. The case of the OP, denying the material averments of the complaint is that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complaint is not a consumer. That on 16-05-2012, the complaint vehicle , was placed along with other two cars in the wash line area for the purpose of carrying out water washing, the complainant vehicle was in the middle along with other two cars, the washing supervisor who is having valid driving license tried to take out his car which is also received for servicing; its brakes have failed and in the result, it had hit rear side of the complainant stationary wagon vehicle which in its forward movement had hit another vehicle as a result freak motor accident, the complainant’s vehicle suffered minor damages to its rear bumper and bonnet cover despite the driver’s effort to stop the forward movement of the vehicle by using the hand brake and they informed the details by their letter dated 17^th May 2012 besides telephonic information and promised to repair complainant’s vehicle to his satisfaction free of cost to the complainant i.e., promised to restore the vehicle to the same order and condition, when it was delivered for servicing. They have also agreed to provide another car free of expenses for his use, pending inspection and completion of repairs to the damaged vehicle.
5. That they have addressed number of communications, seeking Complainant cooperation for inspection and survey and take up complete repairs at the earliest. Though the vehicle is ready for delivery, the complainant did not take delivery. The continued non cooperation of the complainant is obstructing their valuable work space. The supervisor who drove the car is having valid driving license and he also stated in his explanation while taking out vehicle, the brakes have failed and he tried to control by use of hand brake, as such the accident is not result of any fault or deficiency on their part. As per the terms and conditions of job slip which is a foundation to this contract of bailment, the complainant is not entitled for compensation and for any other relief contrary to express terms of a contract.  For these reasons, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. 

6.       To prove the case on behalf of the complainant, Exhibits A1 to A4 are marked besides filing complainant evidence affidavit. On behalf of the OP, Customer Care Manager of the Service Centre of Gajuwaka of OP, filed his Evidence affidavit and got marked Exhibits B1 to B20.

7.       Exhibit A1 is the Notice and reminder notice issued by Opposite party to the Complainant, dated 17-05-2012 and 24-05-2012, Exhibit A2 is the Invoice, dated 05-03-2010, Exhibit A3 is the Legal Notice issued by the complainant to the OP, and Exhibit A4 is Job Slip issued by the OP, dated 16-05-2012.

8.       Exhibit B1 is the Job slip/repair explanation sheet, dated 16-05-2012, Exhibit B2 is the Internal Memo addressed to Mr.Balaraju, dated 16-05-2012, Exhibit B3 is the Reply of Mr.Balaraju, washing Supervisor, dated 16-05-2012, Exhibit B4 is the Driving licence of Mr.Balaraju, dated 27-05-2006, Exhibit B5 is the Identity card of Mr.Balaraju, Exhibit B6 is the OP’s letter to the complainant, dated 17-05-2012, Exhibit B7 is the Registration slip for letter at Sl.No.6, dated 19-05-2012, Exhibit B8 is the Complainant’s postal acknowledgement of Sl.No.6, 21-05-2012, Exhibit B9 is the OP’s 1^st reminder to complainant, dated 24-05-2012, Exhibit B10 is the Speed Post RCT for Sl.No.9, dated 25-05-2012, Exhibit B11 is the Complainant’s Acknowledgement, Exhibit B12 is the letter of OP to complainant, dated 29-06-2012, Exhibit B13 is the postal receipt, dated 29-06-2012, Exhibit B14 is the  OP’s letter to the complainant, dated 11-07-2012, Exhibit B15 is the Postal receipt, dated 12-07-2012, Exhibit B16 is the complainant’s acknowledgement, dated 16-07-2012, Exhibit B17 is the Reply Legal Notice, dated 06-07-2012, Exhibit B18 is the Acknowledgement of legal notice, dated Exhibit B19 is the Final Survey Report for Survey conducted on 13^th July, 2012, dated 26-08-2012 and Exhibit B20 is the one set of photographs (7 Nos.)

9.       Both parties filed their written arguments.

10.     Heard oral arguments from both sides.

          Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

11.     It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Car bearing No.AP 31 B5 5598 in the year 2010 and free services were completed and the car ply for 5000 kilometers and on 16-05-2012, the complainant handed over his car to OP servicing centre for the purpose of better service and to change the oil but subsequently while the car is in the custody of the OP, it was damaged as car was hit by another car due to brake failure of that car. According to the complainant due to irresponsible and negligence of OP, the car was damaged as such he has not interested to ply the car which was involved in the accident and got damaged in the Opposite party service centre.

12.     The 1^st contention of the OP is that claims arising out of an accident involved in Motor Vehicles, Motor Claims Tribunal is only having jurisdiction. Admittedly in the instant case, no complaint is lodged by OP before nearest police station. It is their case while their supervisor driving the complainant’s car due to failure of the brakes another vehicle, the accident was occurred. Admittedly the car while in the OP service centre custody, it was damaged as the complainant car was hit by another car. That does not mean to say that it met with accident, as such, this forum has no jurisdiction. Accordingly this point is answered.

13.     The next contention of the OP is that the relief claimed by the complaint is contrary to express terms of the contract. Exhibit B1 is job slip. The terms printed over leaf the job card which was acknowledged by the complainant and more particularly clause No.6 reads vehicle kept for repairs, test or trial are taken at owners risk only and clause no.3 reads; incase the vehicles or their parts or damaged due to any reasons and the repairs are carried out, charges will be collected from the customer. In the instance case, admittedly the OP had repaired and replaced all the damaged parts without seeking any contribution from the complainant and requested the customer to inspect the vehicle and take delivery. Further, the OP had also offered the alternative vehicle free of charge for the use of customer during the period of repairs but the same was refused by the complainant and to take delivery of vehicle, he insisted insisting for replacement with new car. Exhibits marked on either side clearly indicate that immediately after the complainant car was damaged, the same was intimated to complainant who in turn approached and subsequently reminders were given by OP to take back the car but the complainant  instead of taking back the car insisted for a new car. Naturally even stating a claim for damages, an underwriter deducts certain percentage towards depreciation but in the instance case, the OP did not seek any contribution and borne the entire cost of repairs and replacements which indicates the OP fair enough to do service to the complainant but the complainant did not come forward to take back his vehicle. On a careful scrutiny, we are of the considered that acts of the OP does not fall under the purview of deficiency of service, if any. For these reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

14.     In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 9^th day of July, 2015.                                   

Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                    Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT       

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A1	17-05-2012 24-05-2012	Notice and reminder notice issued by Opposite party to the Complainant, dated 17-05-2012 and 24-05-2012	Original
A2	05-03-2010	Invoice	Photocopy
A3	-	Notice	Office copy
A4	16-05-2012	Job Slip	Photocopy

For the Opposite Parties:-                                                   

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B1	16-05-2012	Job Slip/Repair Explanation Sheet	Photocopy
B2	16-05-2012	Internal Memo addressed to Mr.Balaraju	Photocopy
B3	16-05-2012	Reply of Mr.Balaraju, Washing Supervisor	Photocopy
B4	27-05-2006	Driving License of Mr.Balaraju	Photocopy
B5		Identity Card of Mr.Balaraju	Photocopy
B6	17-05-2012	OP’s Letter to Complainant	Photocopy
B7	19-05-2012	Postal receipt	Photocopy
B8	21-05-2012	Complainant’s postal Acknowledgement	Photocopy
B9	24-05-2012	OP’s 1st Reminder to Complainant	Photocopy
B10	25-05-2012	Speed Post Receipt	Photocopy
B11	25-05-2012	Complainant’s ack.	Photocopy
B12	29-06-2012	Letter of OP to complainant	Photocopy
B13	29-06-2012	Postal receipt for Sl.No.12	Photocopy
B14	11-07-2012	OP’s letter to complainant	Photocopy
B15	12-07-2012	Postal Receipt	Photocopy
B16	16-07-2012	Complainant’s Ack.	Photocopy
B17	06-07-2012	Reply Legal Notice	Photocopy
B18		Ack. of Legal Notice	Photocopy
B19	26-08-2012	Final survey report for survey conducted on 13th July, 2012	Photocopy
B20		One set of Photographs	Original

 

Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                           Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT