Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/314/2014

S.Vishnupathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

VST Service Station Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Ramesh Kumar Chopra

02 Apr 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 23.06.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 02.04.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP. : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.314/2014

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 02^ND DAY OF APRIL 2019

                                 

S. Vishnupathi,

S/o. Mr. Sreenivasan,

No.16A, Uppar Street,

TMP Nagar,

Padi,

Ambattur,

Chennai - 600 050.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                         

 

                                                                                             ..Versus..

 

1. VST Service Station Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its General Manager,

Main Workshop,

New No.237, Old No.182,

Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 006. 

 

2. VST Service Station Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its General Manager,

Branch – Service and body shop,

No.267/2, Poonamalle Bye pass Road,

Poonamallee,

Chennai – 600 056.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s. G. Rameshkumar

                                                                  Chopra & others

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. S. Raghunathan &

                                                                 another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pray to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- collected by branch office illegally as excess payment, Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of income for 60 days as the vehicle could have been repaired in less than a month, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages caused to the car during repair work and Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for mental agony due to deficiency and negligence service provided by the opposite parties.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that the Tata Indica Motor car bearing Registration No. TN 20 BQ 0290 met with an accident on 20.02.2012.  The complainant submits that the vehicle was handed over to the 2^nd opposite party for repair on 21.02.2012 and paid an advance of Rs.25,000/-.  The complainant submits that the 2^nd opposite party gave an estimate of Rs.1,80,000/- for repair charges.  The complainant submits that evenafter repeated requests and demands, after inordinate delay of 60 days, the 2^nd opposite party completed the work and raised a bill for a total sum of Rs.2,11,000/- on 19.05.2012.  The complainant submits that after taking delivery of the vehicle, the complainant was shocked to find that the 2^nd opposite party without changing several spare parts claimed charges.  The complainant states that after taking delivery of the vehicle, the complainant experienced several defects namely; fault in air condition unit, left side front door not properly closing, beading of the window glass was not repaired and was leakage, closing the window inside and the temperature of the car seems to be very high, the Carburettor was not functioning, sensors went out of order it is funny to say that due to the accident left side of the car alone damage. The complainant submits that only left side of the complainant’s car was damaged but in the bill the opposite party has charged for the replacement of parts in both the sides of the car, which branch office did not do. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the complainant is not a “Consumer” under Section 2 (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act.   The complainant has admitted to the fact that the Tata Indica bearing Registration No.TN 20 BQ 0290  was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of earning for his livelihood.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the allegation of deficiency in service regarding the repair works is imaginary.  The repair related to the accident work has been properly rectified and taken delivery of the vehicle.  The complainant after due verification, took delivery of the vehicle after due payment.  The allegation of different kinds of defects are imaginary.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that exorbitant amount received by the 2^nd opposite party towards repair also imaginary.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the claim is barred by limitation.   As per Section 24 A, “the complaint shall be filed within 2 years from the day of cause of action arose”.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.    Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.1,00,000/- paid in excess towards the repair charges as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards the loss of income and Rs.3,00,000/-towards compensation of damages, mental agony and negligence in service with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard their Counsels also.   Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  Admittedly, the Tata Indica Motor car bearing Registration No. TN 20 BQ 0290 met with an accident on 20.02.2012.  Ex.A1 is the Police Report.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the vehicle was handed over to the 2^nd opposite party for repair on 21.02.2012 and paid an advance of Rs.25,000/- is also admitted.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party gave an estimate of Rs.1,80,000/- for repair charges.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A2 (S) showing the estimate dated:21.02.2012 shows total estimate is of Rs.1,61,550/-.  Neither the complainant nor the 2^nd opposite party had produced any document to prove the estimate of Rs.1,80,000/- towards repair charges.   Further the contention of the complainant is that evenafter repeated requests and demands, after inordinate delay of 60 days, the 2^nd opposite party completed the work and raised a bill for a total sum of Rs.2,11,000/- on 19.05.2012.   But both parties has not filed any document to prove the revised bill of Rs.2,11,000/- and the complainant made payment of Rs.2,11,561/- and took delivery of the vehicle. 

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that after taking delivery of the vehicle, the complainant was shocked to find that the 2^nd opposite party without changing several spare parts claimed charges.  Equally, instead of changing one of the indicator lamp, head light etc changed both items and claimed bill for that.  Similarly, several claims like oil service, water service, cleaning etc have no connection with the repair work.  Furthermore, the 2^nd opposite party without taking into consideration of the damaged spare parts and its value claimed exorbitant amount i.e. more than 20% of the estimate.   Further the contention of the complainant is that after taking delivery of the vehicle, the complainant experienced several defects namely; fault in air condition unit, left side front door not properly closing, beading of the window glass was not repaired and was leakage, closing the window inside and the temperature of the car seems to be very high, the Carburettor was not functioning, sensors went out of order it is funny to say that due to the accident left side of the car alone damage.  But the bill showing several replacements on the right side of the car also.   Thereby, the opposite parties collected more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards repair charges including spare parts.  But neither the complainant nor the opposite parties has not produced any document to prove the above said deficiencies and the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to prove the excess claim. 

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the allegation that the claim is barred by limitation is not acceptable.  But on a careful perusal of records, admittedly, the accident happened on 20.02.2012.  It is also admitted that the car was sent on repair on 21.02.2012 and all the repair works made and ready for delivery on 19.05.2012.   It is also admitted that the payment of Rs.2,11,561/- on 19.05.2012 and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle.  But the case is filed only on 23.06.2014.   There is a delay of 34 days in filing this complaint.  The complainant has not taken any steps to condone the delay even there is a specific provision Section 24 A provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which reads as follows “the complaint shall be filed within 2 years from day of the cause of action arose”.

8.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 would contend that the allegation of deficiency in service regarding the repair works is imaginary.  The repair related to the accident work has been properly rectified and taken delivery of the vehicle.  The complainant after due verification, took delivery of the vehicle after due payment.  The allegation of different kinds of defects are imaginary.   Equally, the averments that exorbitant amount received by the 2^nd opposite party towards repair also imaginary.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the claim is barred by limitation.   As per Section 24 A, “the complaint shall be filed within 2 years from day of the cause of action arose”.  But the complainant has filed this case after the period of limitation without condoning the delay.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 also.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the consideration view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

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

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 02^nd day of April 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

Ex.A1	20.02.2012	Copy of Certificate issued by the Baluchetty Chatram Police Station
Ex.A2 (S)		Copy of invoice, bills, Inspection Report of the Insurance Company
Ex.A3	22.11.2012	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties
Ex.A4	27.10.2012	Copy of reply notice of the opposite parties to the complainant through their Advocate

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2 SIDE DOCUMENTS:- NIL

 

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT