State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Proprietor, Sai Car World, vs K.N.Ragendran, Ms/O Narayana Chetty on 16 June, 2023
Daily Order IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. Present: Hon'ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT THIRU R VENKATESAPERUMAL : MEMBER F.A. No. 77 of 2020 (Against the order passed in C.C. No.27 of 2015 dated 28.02.2019 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Krishnagiri). Friday, the 16th day of June 2023 The Proprietor Sai Car World 416/2B1, NH7 Near TVS Showroom (VS) Maruti Nagar Krishnagiri Bye-pass Road Hosur- 635 109. .. Appellant/ Opposite Party - Vs - K.N.Rajendran S/o. Narayana Chetty Sri Vasavi Nivas Plot No.32, Phase II Opp.Luk India Hosur. .. Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party : M/s. N.Maheswaraiah Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : M/s. V.Balaji This Appeal is coming before us for hearing today and, after hearing the counsel for the appellant and the complainant and upon perusing the material records, this Commission passes the following:- O R D E R
R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT [Open Court] This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 28.02.2019 passed in C.C.No.27 of 2015, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishnagiri, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein, in part.
2. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their ranking before the District Forum.
3. The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows: The Complainant was using a Chevrolet Beat car bearing Registration No.TN 70 E 0469 for his business and family use. On 19.09.2014, the complainant approached the opposite party for his car service with the defect of Oil leakage on Gauge side and low pick up. The opposite party received a sum of Rs.4725/- for service and delivered the car on 19.09.2014. Again on 08.10.2014, when the complainant approached the opposite party, the complainant was informed that the Turbo is damaged and advised him to service the Turbo by replacing new parts. As per the advice of the opposite party, the complainant remitted a sum of Rs.9100/- to the opposite party Account No.116015570125 in the name of R.Annalakshmi, KVB Bank, Gnanaolivapuram Branch, Madurai for replacing some new parts in the Turbo. Inspite of the service done by the opposite party the problem persisted from the very next day. Hence, the complainant again approached the opposite party but the opposite party informed the complainant that there may be problem in the engine and advised the complainant to service the engine of the car. The opposite party also gave a guarantee that the car for would run for 1 lakh kilometre, without any problem. The opposite party gave an estimate of Rs.53,100/- for service of the engine. The complainant agreed and remitted a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance and the balance amount through his Current Account cheque No.247541 of ICICI Bank. Inspite of service of the engine, the problem continued and there was a noise in the engine. Hence, the complainant reported the same to the opposite party, for which the opposite party informed that the problem in the engine would be cleared after the car runs 2000 or 3000 kms. Although the car ran 5500 kms, there was no improvement but oil leaked from the oil gauge and the complainant had been filling oil every two to three weeks. Before running 7000 kms, the condition of the car became worst and the complainant informed the same to the opposite party. But the opposite party avoided the calls of the complainant. Hence, on 30.04.2015 the complainant approached 'Thrive Cars' located in Rayakottai Road to service his car. After service, 'Thrive cars' delivered the car on 25.05.2015 on collecting a sum of Rs.1,14,556/- towards service and repair and also informed the complainant that the Turbo and Engine are completely damaged. Having received the cost for repair and service, it is the duty of the opposite party to give proper service to the car. The opposite party had received Rs.13,825/- for Turbo parts and service but had not serviced the car properly. Again, the opposite party received charges of Rs.53,100/- for engine service and repair. But, the opposite party did not service the engine properly. Due to deficiency of service committed by the opposite party, the complainant had to spend an additional amount of Rs.1,14,556/- for service his car with Thrive Cars. From 19.09.2014 to 25.05.2015 the complainant was unable to use his car for business and family purposes. Hence, the complainant had to spend additional expenses towards transportation. This caused physical and mental agony for the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had filed the complaint, claiming the following directions to the opposite party:-
To give the unnecessary expenses of Rs.1,14,556/- spent for the car service, which had happened due to the poor service of the opposite part; To return the amount of Rs.66,925/- which was given by the complainant for his poor service; To pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and unnecessary expenses for cal taxi; and To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party filing a written version stating that the complainant is not at all a consumer as per the provisions of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He was using his Chevrolet BEAT car bearing Registration No. TN 70 F 0469 for his business purpose. It is a white board car and hence it is a private car. But the complainant had been using the car for business that is for commercial purpose, violating the provisions of M.V Act. The complainant had approached the opposite party on 17.09.2014 for service of his car for the defect of side oil leakage and low pick up. The opposite party found that the car had plied without engine oil and almost the engine was in seizure condition. When the opposite party checked the engine, it was in a recompressing stage. Hence, the opposite party informed the complainant that engine work has to be done. But the complainant asked the opposite party to do only the turbo work, so as to enable him to sell the car. When the opposite party took the vehicle for service on 17.09.2014, the mileage was 31460 kms. The opposite party replaced the oil filter, air filter, engine oil, Turbo, water wash and oil service and charged Rs.4725/-. Only Rs.1000/- was charged towards labour and the balance amount was towards the cost of spares. The car was delivered to the complainant on 19.09.2014. Again on 08.10.2014, after a lapse of 19 days, with the mileage of 33610 kms., i.e., after running 2150 kms., the complainant brought the vehicle in the same condition, without doing the engine work and with the same problems. The opposite party advised the complainant to do the engine work since the engine is in a worst condition. The complainant reluctantly accepted to do the engine work with the opposite party. He already had an enquiry with M/s.Thrive Cars, Hosur, who had given an estimate to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is utter false to state that the opposite party gave a guarantee to run one lakh kilometers without any problem, after service of the engine. Only after the consent given by the complainant, the opposite party did the engine service. The opposite party had purchased the spares and spent for lathe work, a sum of Rs.41,600/- and the charges towards transport, labour, turbo transport and water wash was Rs.11,500/-. After service was complete, the complainant had checked the car by taking a test drive and only after being fully satisfied with the work done by the opposite party, he had taken delivery of the car on 18.10.2014. While delivering the car, the opposite party advised the complainant to do periodical service so as to set the engine free. Since the complainant was going on complaining that the service was not proper, during March 2015 the opposite party again did the engine oil service and took the complainant for a test drive along with their mechanic from Hosur to Madurai, covering 840 kms. At that time there was no oil leakage and engine noise and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle happily. Whileso, on 25.05.2015 the complainant left the car with the dealer M/s.Thrive Cars and the mileage was 54,271 kms., on that date. Hence, within two months, the complainant had driven the car for 9271 kms. There is no piece of evidence to show that this opposite party had committed deficiency of service and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove the case, both the parties have filed their proof affidavits and on the side of the complainant, 6 documents have been marked as Exhibits A1 to A6 and on the side of the opposite party 3 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to B3.
6. After analyzing the entire evidence on record, the District Forum had observed that the complainant had initially approached the opposite party and thereafter M/s.Thrive Cars, which would go to show that there was some lacuna in doing service to the car. Hence, had come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.57,825/- collected towards repairing, service charges of spare parts and labours, etc., by the opposite party and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite party.
7. Heard the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant/opposite party and the respondent/complainant and we have carefully perused the entire material available on records.
8. The crux of the complaint is, with regard to the shortcoming in the servicing of the car. It is the submission of the complainant that the car was taken to the opposite party on 19.09.2014 for the first time and the servicing work was done. But, within a short span of 19 days, on 08.10.2014, since there was noise in the engine, the car was taken to the opposite party for doing engine service. The opposite party had collected Rs.53,100/- for the service. Even after that service, the problem in the engine persisted. After six months, again the car was taken to another service centre M/s.Thrive Cars, where proper service was done, for which the complainant had to pay Rs.1,14,556/-. Therefore, it is the submission of the counsel for the complainant that since the car was not properly serviced by the opposite party, the complainant had to spend another Rs.1,14,556/- to do the engine service with M/s.Thrive Cars. Had the opposite party done the service meticulously, he would not have met this expense. But it is the case of the opposite party that the question as to whether the service done by the opposite party was proper or not, cannot be decided by the District Forum without any expert evidence. But, in the instant case, the complainant had not adduced any expert evidence. Hence, on this sole ground itself, the District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint. Though there is no expert opinion, we find from the factual background of the case that the complainant was frequently taking the car for servicing, which would clearly show that there was a problem in engine. As contended by the counsel for the complainant, had the car been serviced meticulously by the opposite party, there is no need for the complainant to take the car for service to M/s.Thrive Cars. Considering the factual background of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party has not done the car servicing properly. Anyhow we find that, out of Rs.53,100/- collected by the opposite party, Rs.41,600/- has been spent by the opposite party for purchasing spare parts. Hence, if the said amount is deducted from Rs.53,100/- the balance works out to Rs.11,500/-, being the labour charges for which alone the complainant is entitled. Further, we find that the District Forum had awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and loss, which could be enhanced to Rs.12,000/-. Therefore, in our considered opinion the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.13,000/- towards labour charges and a sum of Rs.12,000/- as compensation for mental agony & loss. The sum of Rs.5000/- awarded towards litigation expenses is reasonable and remains unchanged. Hence, to meet the interest of justice, the complainant could be granted a total sum of Rs.30,000/-, in toto as compensation.
9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishnagiri in C.C.No.27 of 2015 is modified to the effect that the appellant/opposite party shall pay a total sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant. No order as to costs.
R VENKATESAPERUMAL R.SUBBIAH MEMBER PRESIDENT Index : Yes/ No AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/June/2023