Andhra Pradesh
Visakhapatnam-II
CC/202/2013
Padmanabha Sahukar - Complainant(s)
Versus
Vishnu Carriers Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)
Sanapala Karuna
20 Jul 2015
ORDER
Date of Registration of the Complaint:27-08.2013
Date of Order:20-07-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT
VISAKHAPATNAM
P r e s e n t:
1. Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,
President
2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,
Lady Member
Monday, the 20th day of July, 2015.
CONSUMER CASE No.202/2013
Between:-
Padmanabha Sahukar, S/o late Surebdra
Sahukar garu, Hindu, aged 44 years, R/at
D. No. 39-14-7, Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam-7.
….. Complainant
And:-
1.Vishnu Carriers Pvt. Ltd., authorized dealer of
Tata Motors , Near N. H.5, besides Coco Cola,
Visakhapatnam-7, represented by its Manager.
2.Vishnu Carriers Pvt. Ltd., authorized Servicing Center,
D1, D2 & D4, Industrial Estate, Visakhapanam-7,
Represented by Authorized Signatory.
… Opposite Parties
This case coming on 10.07.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Sanapala Karuna & Smt. Sanapala Sailaja, Advocates for the Complainant and Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Parties and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)
1. This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties directing them to pay an amount of Rs.96,000/- towards loss of monthly earnings and Bank installments and interest on hand loans; Rs.20,000/- towards compensation with costs.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he purchased Tata Motors Iris Vehicle bearing Reg. No. AP31TU3581 from the 1st Opposite Party through Bank loan from Indian Overseas Bank, Madhavadhara Branch by raising hand loans and monthly bank installment is Rs.5,000/- per month and the local loan is Rs.2,000/-. On 01.04.2012 the vehicle was met with an accident and immediately it was given to the 2nd Opposite Party’s Servicing Center for repairs on 02.04.2012 and he used to visit the Servicing Center for early repairs but the staff of the 2nd Opposite Party used to tell to come on the next day. Accordingly he roam around the servicing center for nearly 3 months and in the meanwhile, he visited the 1st Opposite Party but also made him to visit the main show room for another 15 days.
3. That on 29.06.2012 he visited the Servicing Center and asked about the delivery of his vehicle but there was no proper response and finally they have informed due to shortage of the parts of the vehicle, it was not ready and delivered the vehicle on 10.07.2012 after collecting Rs.6,286/- towards repair charges by the 2nd Opposite Party. He used to earn an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month from out of it. He used to pay the interest on the amount borrowed for purchase of the vehicle and to the bank, as a result he sustained a tune of an amount of Rs.66,000/-, due to non-delivery of the vehicle for a period of 3 months 8 days. He sustained the said loss of Rs.66,000/- and Rs.30,000/- towards bank installments and interests on hand loan. The van is only means for his survival and due to the late delivery of the vehicle by the Opposite Parties, he sustained huge loss. Hence, this complaint.
4. The case of the Opposite Parties admitting purchase of the vehicle through bank loan but they have no-way concern about raising loans from the local people, so also the payment of monthly bank interest @ Rs.5,000/- and admitted the vehicle was met with an accident on 01.04.2012 and it was given to them for repairs on 4.4.2012 but denied the Complainant used to visit their servicing center etc., asking for delivery of the vehicle. They further contended after find out the Complainant’s of the vehicle as the vehicle spare parts are not available in Servicing Center and the same was required form the head office at Kolkata. After handing over of the vehicle the Complainant never approached them but on several times through their phone conversation the Complainant approached to them on 5.7.2012 and at the same time gave receipt of Rs.10,500/- towards repairing charges and after receipt of the final amount of Rs.6,286/- dated 10.07.2012, they delivered the vehicle as such there is no negligence from their side to deliver the vehicle. Further they have not received any legal notice from the Complainant. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any amount. For these reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. To prove the case on behalf of the Complainant, he filed his evidence affidavit and got marked as Exs.A1 to A6. On the other hand, on behalf of the Opposite Parties, they filed their evidence affidavits. No documents were marked for the Opposite Parties.
6. Ex.A1 is the photo copy of Certification of Registration Form-23 of the Complainant dated 09.01.2012. Ex.A2 is the office copy of Lawyer’s Notice addressed by the Complainant’s counsel to the Opposite Parties dated 12.08.2012. Ex.A3 is the original Acknowledgement from the 1st Opposite Party. Ex.A4 is the original Acknowledgement from the 2nd Opposite Party. Ex.A5 is the original Delivery Receipt issued by the 2nd Opposite Party dated 02.04.2012. Ex.A6 is the original Cash Receipt No.848 an amount of Rs.6,286/- issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 10.07.2012
7. Both parties filed their respective written arguments.
8. Heard oral arguments from both sides.
9. Now the point that arises for determination is:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?
10. According to the Complainant when he delivered his vehicle for repairs on 4.4.2012 it was re-delivered to him on 10.07.2012. On the other hand, according to the 2nd Opposite Party due to lack of spares in their office and after receipt of final payment on 10.7.2012 they re-delivered the vehicle to the Complainant and inspite of their approache there was no response from the Complainant to take back the vehicle, as such there was no delay on their part for delivery of the vehicle.
11. To prove the case of the Complainant besides his evidence affidavit, he relied upon Ex.A2 Lawyer’s Notice dated 12.08.2012 got issued by the Complainant’s Advocate to the Opposite Parties and it was duly received by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 under Exs.A3 and Ex.A4 are acknowledgements. Having received notices the Opposite Parties did not sent any reply and no reasons are assigned in the counter as to why they have not sent any reply. On the other hand, the counter averments shows the said notices were not received by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 but Exs.A3 and Ex.A4 clinch the same. Inspite of proper notice severed, they kept quiet for the reasons best known to them. The Ex.A5 is the receipt issued by the Opposite Parties which goes to show that the guarrage received the vehicle bearing No. AP31TU3581 on 2.4.2012 and Ex.A6 reveals that the Opposite Parties have received an amount of Rs.6,286/- on 10.07.2012 towards vehicle service amount. As seen from Exs.A5 and Ex.A6 it is evident that the vehicle was in the Opposite Parties custody from 2.4.2012 to 10.7.2012. On perusal of these exhibits, it is clear that the Complainant satisfactorily established that the vehicle in question was in the custody of the Opposite Parties for a period of nearly about 3 months 8 days.
12. It is the contention of the Opposite Parties due to lack of spare parts and as they available at their head office of Kolkata they took considerable time for repairs of the Complainant’s vehicle. It is also their case that inspite of the vehicle get ready for delivery due to the latches and negligence of the Complainant, it was not delivered, therefore, the burden lies on the Opposite Parties. Except their evidence affidavit the Opposite Parties did not choose to file the relevant store keeper affidavit stating the spare parts were not available and that they got it from Kolkata. Further they have not filed any correspondence evidencing they addressed a letter to the head office and in turn they received them etc. Further to show that they have contacted the Complainant after the vehicle get ready for delivery; they have not chosen to file of any correspondence much less the call data stated to have been issued from their office to the Complainant. In the absence any such evidence, we are of the considered view, that due to the negligence and the latches on the part of the Opposite Parties only the vehicle was in the custody of the Opposite Parties for a period of 3 months 8 days. On scrutiny of all these facts and circumstances, we are of further view, that the acts of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled for relief of deficiency in service from the Opposite Parties.
13. The case of the Complainant is that due to the latches and negligence of the Opposite Parties for non-delivery of the vehicle he sustained loss of his earnings for an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month besides Rs.30,000/- as he paid the bank interest for the hand loan borrowed from the local people and relied upon Ex.A1; however, he did not file the relevant bank loan receipts evidencing that he was paying monthly installments to the financier of Rs.5,000/- per month so also interest to local persons from whom, he borrowed private loan, Ex.A1 only clinches that he purchased the vehicle under higher purchase agreement, since Ex.A1 clinches that he purchased the vehicle through bank loan from the Indian Overseas Bank there is every likelihood that he has to pay monthly installments. Since the vehicle was in the custody of the Opposite Parties, he could not able to get income, for all these 3 months 8 days. As such, he may not be in a position to pay the bank installments. Further it appears the source of income to the Complainant is from the income of the vehicle, therefore, there is every likelihood that he could not get income for his day to day maintenance and thereby he may suffer mental agony without having any earnings for his survival. The Complainant did not file any record, evidencing the income derived from the vehicle; that does not mean to say that he is not entitled some amounts towards latches on the part of the Opposite Parties. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view, that the Complainant is entitled lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- per month towards loss in keeping their vehicle in the custody of the Opposite Parties in total an amount of Rs.45,000/-, besides compensation and costs.
14. Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stages of our discussion what is the rate of interest for which the Complainant is entitled. The rate of interest claimed by the Complainant is 9% p.a. This rate of interest claimed by the Complainant appears to be excessive, of course, it is a fact that the transaction covered by Ex.A1 is in commercial in nature, but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is a licenced to claim interest @ 9% p.a. on Ex.A1. But at the same time, it is an imperative on our part to award a reasonable interest. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we sincerely feel having considered the case on hand awarding of interest @ 9% p.a. on Ex.A1 would better serve the ends of justice. Consequently, we proposed to fix at rate in question @ 9% p.a. on Ex.A1 in question. Accordingly interest is ordered.
15. Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- is to be considered. It appears as seen from the evidence of PW-1 that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Party and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is un-dispute fact that the Opposite Party did not deliver the vehicle within reasonable time . Naturally that made have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain. In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation. But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of 5,000/- would serve the ends of justice. We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.5,000 /-, in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.
16. Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation. The Complainant ought not have to approach this Forum had his claim for refund of the sum of Rs.96,000/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Parties within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for claims for cost deserves to be allowed. In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable. Accordingly costs are awarded.
17. In the result, this Complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of registration of Complaint on 27.08.2013 till the date of realization, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation and costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) to the Complainant. Time for compliance, one month.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 20th day of July, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member President
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For the Complainant:-
NO. | DATE | DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS | REMARKS |
Ex.A01 | 09.01.2012 | Certification of Registration Form-23 of the Complainant | Photo copy |
Ex.A02 | 12.08.2012 | Lawyer’s Notice addressed by the Complainant’s counsel to the Ops | Office copy |
Ex.A03 |
| Acknowledgment from the 1st OP | Original |
Ex.A04 |
| Acknowledgement from the 2nd OP | Original |
Ex.A05 | 02.04.2012 | Delivery Receipt issued by the 2nd OP | Original |
Ex.A06 | 10.07.2012 | Cash Receipt No.848 an amount of | Original |
For the Opposite Parties:-
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member President
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.