State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
A.Venkat Reddy vs 1. Tejaswi Motors Pvt Ltd., on 15 May, 2023
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.111 OF 2017
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.50 OF 2014, DISTRICT
CONSUMER COMMISSION-RANGA REDDY
Between:
A.Venkat Reddy, S/o.Janga Reddy,
Aged: 38 yrs, Occ: Business,
R/o.Flat No.101, 1st Floor,
High Rise Pearl Apartments,
Anupama Nagar, Hasthinapuram,
R.R.District.
...... Appellant/Complainant
And
1.Tejaswi Motors Private Limited, Rep. by its Directors, Siva Nellakanta Butta, Butta House, 2nd Floor, Plot No.4/14, Opposite Cyber Towers, Hi-Tech City, KPHB Road, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 081.
2. Fiat Group Automobiles India Pvt.Ltd., (FGAIPL) Rep. by its Director Benefice, 3rd Floor, Mathuradas Mill Compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai - 400 013, India.
.....Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: M/s. B. Shai Reddy Counsel for the Respondents/Opp.Parties: Mr.C.RamaSubba Reddy -R1 Mr. N. Lakshminarayana - R2 QUORUM:
HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER-JUDICIAL MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ******* Order : (Per Sri K.Ranga Rao, Hon'ble Member-Judicial)
1. This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful Complainant U/s.15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, praying this State Commission to set aside the order of the District Consumer 2 Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy dated 25.08.2014 passed in CC.No.50/2014.
2. For the sake of convenient discussion, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the complaint. The Appellant was the Complainant and the Respondents were the Opposite Parties.
3. Briefly stated the averments of the complaint are that the Complainant purchased a Fiat Car bearing No.AP 07 AU 0369 of the year 2009 Make and handed over the same to Opposite Party No.1, Service Station on 30.03.2013 to get it repaired. The Opposite Party No.1 is authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.1 gave the job slip to the Complainant and agreed to deliver the vehicle within two days in a fit condition.
The Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 as per their promise for delivery of the vehicle. But Opposite Party No.1 requested some more time as there is shortage of workers in their service station. The Complainant agreed and gave some more time to repair his vehicle.
4. Thereafter, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 on several occasions, but Opposite Party No.1 was postponing the same on one pretext or the other. The staff of Opposite Party No.1 gave evasive replies. Till now the Opposite Party No.1 did not deliver the vehicle to the Complainant even after 10 months. The Complainant is paying every month instalment at Rs.12,272/- to a tune of Rs.1,22,720/- for a period of 10 months, even though the vehicle is in the custody of Opposite Party No.1. If the vehicle is given on rent/hire, the Complainant would have earned an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for a period of 10 months at Rs.25,000/- per month. Moreover, the Complainant is spending an amount of Rs.250/- per day for his transport expenses. The Complainant has suffered damages/losses in his business to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/- due to the non-delivery of the vehicle to him by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant got issued legal notice dated 03.07.2013 3 for which Opposite Party No.1 gave reply notice on 05.11.2013 with frivolous allegations. The Complainant also got issued reply notice to the reply notice given by Opposite Party No.1. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1 again issued notices on 07.12.2013 and 22.01.2014 with several false allegations. Hence, the complaint.
5. The Opposite Party No.1 filed written version contending that the Complainant suppressed many facts in his complaint. The Fiat Car was brought to their work shop 30.03.2013 for repairs. The said vehicle was manufactured in July,2009 due to which several technical snags both in engine and other spare parts developed. After two days i.e., on 03.04.2013, they informed about the technical issues including the engine oil consumption and also explained the exact estimate amounts for repairs to the Complainant. It is informed to the Complainant that the service estimated cost is around Rs.1.50 lakhs. The Complainant requested that he would arrange 50% of the estimated cost initially. Even though they were constantly updating the Complainant about the progress of the repair works, the Complainant never cared to make any payment even after completion of the repair works with malafide intention.
6. The Complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as per the terms and conditions mentioned on the back side of job slip towards parking and up-keep charges at Rs.250/- per day. They never agreed to deliver the vehicle within two days as alleged in the complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 further submits that it is false to allege that they sought for further time due to shortage of staff as mentioned in the complaint. They got issued proper reply to the legal notice given by the Complainant. They also got issued suitable reply notice on 05.11.2013, 07.12.2013 and 22.01.2014. There is no deficiency in service on their part and therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
7. The Opposite Party No.2 did not choose to contest the matter.
48. During the course of trial, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A17. The Service Manager of Opposite Party No.1 filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B3 on behalf of Opposite Parties.
9. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
10. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the Complainant preferred the present appeal with the following grounds:
The order of the District Forum is contrary to law, weight of evidence, probabilities of the case and is based on presumptions and assumptions without going into the merits of the case and therefore, is liable to be set aside. The District Forum grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that the Complainant is simply blaming the Opposite Parties without taking delivery of the vehicle after its service. The Complainant by and large has reiterated almost all the averments of the complaint in his grounds of appeal.
11. With the above grounds, the Appellant/Complainant prays to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order of the District Forum and allow his complaint as prayed for.
12. This appeal relates to the year 2017. It is observed from docket order that the past previous nine adjournments, there has been no representation on either side and in view of the same, we reserved this appeal for orders so as to decide the same on merits.
13. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with in any manner? To what relief?
514. On a careful perusal of the whole material borne by the record, it is manifest that it is an admitted fact that the Appellant/Complainant has purchased Fiat Car of Opposite Party No.2 during the year 2009 and it was handed over to Opposite Party No.1 for repairs on 30.03.2013. The Opposite Party No.1 is authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.2.
15. It is the contention and grievance of the Complainant that his vehicle was not delivered to him after making necessary repairs even after lapse of ten months period despite the fact that Opposite Party No.1 promised to deliver the same within two days.
16. But, on the other hand, it is the rival contention and submission of the Opposite Party No.1 that they informed the Complainant that several parts have to be replaced as it is an old vehicle and they also informed him that the estimated cost would be around Rs.1,40,000/-. It is the further contention of Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant did not choose to pay the cost of the repairs even though the vehicle was repaired on his assurance. The Opposite Party No.1 submits that there is no deficiency on his part and the fault lies with the Complainant for not taking delivery of the vehicle by paying the charged amount.
17. Ex.A1 is the copy of the job slip which is equivalent to Ex.B1, the original copy. The terms and conditions are marked as Ex.B2 on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1. Those terms and conditions are also printed on the back side of Ex.A1. There is a column in Ex.A1 about the estimated delivery, date/time. Evidently, the said column is left blank. In other words, the date and time of the delivery is not mentioned in the job slip. Hence, there is no basis for the Complainant to say that Opposite Party No.1 agreed to deliver the vehicle within two days as mentioned by him in his complaint. The email correspondence made by the Complainant with Opposite Party No.2 are marked as Ex.A4 to A6. The same shows that the Complainant gave the complaint to 6 Opposite Party No.2 with regard to the service of Opposite Party No.1 only on 05.10.2013. It is not known as to why the Complainant had kept quiet for a period of more than six months when Opposite Party No.1 did not make the repairs within reasonable time. The Complainant got issued the legal notice only on 30.07.2013 to Opposite Party No.1 under Ex.A2. It also shows that the Complainant, after lapse of three months, got issued the said notice to Opposite Party No.1. It is the version of Opposite Party No.1, that the car of the Complainant was brought to the service centre with the below mentioned problems:
(1)Engine oil consumption (2)Blue tooth not working (3)Fuel flap not working
18. Ex.A7 is the reply notice given by Opposite Party No.1 through their counsel on 05.11.2013 wherein they mentioned the above problems which are major and further informed the Complainant to take delivery of his vehicle within seven days by paying repair charges. It is clearly mentioned in the said reply that the repair work is completed. Ex.A9, A10 and A12 are the notice correspondence made in between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 and in the same, the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 blamed each other. Admittedly, the vehicle was purchased by the Complainant during the year 2009 and he gave the said vehicle to Opposite Party No.1 in the year 2013 and the same shows that five years' time is elapsed since the year of the purchase and the same strengthens the version of Opposite Party No.1, the need to effect major repairs to the vehicle. It is also probable to Opposite Party No.1 to take considerable time for completing the major repairs.
19. When the Complainant gave his vehicle to Opposite Party No.1 for effecting the repairs, it would be quite probable, the Opposite Party No.1 after inspecting the vehicle and opening the engine, could estimate the cost of the repairs and quite naturally he could have informed about the same to the Complainant. But as 7 seen from the complaint, the Complainant nowhere in his complaint mentioned about the said aspect and the estimated cost of the repairing charges informed by Opposite Party No.1 to him. The said attitude of the Complainant supports the version of Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant suppressed the true facts. There is no evidence placed by the Complainant to show that his vehicle was not properly repaired by Opposite Party No.1. Having considered the totality of the facts, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 by any cogent and convincing evidence, as such, the complaint of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed and the District Forum rightly did the same on appreciation of the evidence borne by the record properly.
20. Viewed from any angle, nothing appears to us to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the District Forum, as such we confirm the same.
21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT MEMBER-J
Dt:15.05.2023
UC*