State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
B.Velayudam vs The Manager, (Service And Repairs) on 26 May, 2023
Daily Order IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL MEMBER F.A.NO.178/2018 (Against order in CC.NO.2/2015 on the file of the DCDRC, Salem) DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MAY 2023 B. Velayudam Old No.21, New No.7, Chamundeeswari Nagar M/s. V. Balaji Gangai Street, Angaputhur Counsel for Chennai - 600 070 Appellant / Complainant Vs. The Manager (Service and Repairs) S7, Cars India (P) Ltd., 555, Meyyanoor Main Road Served called absent Salem - 636 004 Respondent/Opposite Party The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.19.6.2018 in CC.No.2/2015. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 10.3.2023, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order: ORDER
JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant as against the order dt.19.6.2018 passed by the District Commission, Salem, in CC.No.2/2015 by dismissing the complaint filed by the Appellant/complainant herein.
2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred as per ranking before the District Commission.
3. The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:
The complainant had purchased the Skoda Fabia Classic 1.4 TDI PD, Cappuchina Beige Colour, Chasis No.TMBAEE5JAG012684, Engine No.BNM403424, bearing Reg.No.TN22-BK-2994 on 5.6.2010, from Gurudev Motors Pvt., Ltd., Chennai, and the said car met with an accident on 16.8.2012, at the place between Ammaiyagaram to Melnariappanoor at 4.30 pm. He had immediately given intimation to the Chinnasalem Police Station on 17.8.2012. The police had also issued accident certificate on that date. The complainant had given the car to the dealer of the opposite party for rectifying the accidental damage. The opposite party had given an estimation of repair to the complainant on 23.8.2012 and quoted that a sum of Rs.4,60,128.81 as repair expenses. The complainant had paid the advance amount of Rs.1 lakh for rectifying the repair and service work. When he asked about the status of the car, the opposite party used to reply that the works were under process. While so, the opposite party had issued a credit invoice letter to the complainant on 30.9.2013, demanding a sum of Rs.7,59,528/-. Before the issuance of credit invoice letter to the complainant, and during the repair work in process, the opposite party did not ask anything for approval about the excess estimate amount of repairs. The complainant had insured the vehicle for full coverage with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., B.O, Chennai - 56. In those circumstances, the opposite party had issued a reminder to the complainant on 27.12.2013, demanding the balance due of Rs.6,69,528/-, after adjusting the advance amount of Rs.1 lakh. It is noted that the real car price itself is Rs.6,06,794/-. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant had issued legal notice to the opposite party. Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for a direction to the opposite party to receive the balance estimate of repairs amounting to Rs.360128.81/- and immediately deliver the vehicle, alongwith compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and cost of Rs.5000/-.
4. The case of the complainant was resisted by the opposite party as follows:
The complainant had brought the vehicle to the company for repair on 18.8.2012, after inspection the opposite party gave an initial quotation for the estimated repair of Rs.460128.81/- . The complainant paid Rs.1 lakh as advance on 13.9.2012. The estimation was given tentatively, and the complainant was intimated that only after doing the full repair, the exact final estimation could be given, and he was instructed to bear the balance amount. The complainant had accepted for the said proposal, and only on his assurance the vehicle was taken for repair. Since the vehicle is an old model, he was informed to get the spare parts for the old model car, which would cost more. Since the complainant had accepted the said proposal, the repair work was proceeded. The complainant was also informed about the status of the vehicle every now and then, and he was fully aware that the total cost of repair would cross the actual cost of the vehicle. The total cost of repairing work incurred by the company was Rs.7,59,528/- and after deducting the advance payment of Rs.1 lakh, the balance of Rs.659528/- is payable by the complainant. As per the terms and conditions and policy of the company, 50% of the repairing cost shall be paid by the customer to allow the company to proceed with the repairing work. Inspite of repeated request made by the company, the complainant refused to pay 50% payment, as per the revised estimation. Moreover, the complainant also refused to sign the insurance satisfaction voucher to obtain the liability amount from the insurance company and he was not cooperating with the opposite party. In fact, the opposite party wrote a letter dt.30.11.2013 to the complainant informing about the total cost of repair to be incurred by him and thereafter the complainant contacted the opposite party and negotiated for discount. The opposite party refused to accept the proposal, and sent reminders on 27.12.2013 and 23.1.2014 demanding the payment. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
5. In order to prove their claim, proof affidavits were filed alogwith documents, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant. There was no document filed on the side of the opposite parties.
6. The District Commission, after analysing the evidence had come to the conclusion that at the time of submitting proof affidavit the complainant failed to mark the estimation of repairs dt.23.8.2012. However, a perusal of the said unmarked document, under the caption terms and conditions, it is mentioned as "This estimation has been drawn on casual observation only. Supplementary estimate will be provided, if necessary, after opening the sub-assemblies". Thereafter the final estimation was given as Rs.7,59,528/-. Thereby holding that there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint was dismissed by the District Commission. Aggrieved over the order impugned, the complainant has filed this appeal, praying to allow the complaint, as prayed for.
7. The Respondent, though served, remained absent before this commission. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant that the estimation though filed, the same had not been marked as document before the District Commission. But the District Commission, by taking the unmarked document into consideration, had come to the conclusion that the earlier estimation given on 23.8.2012 is only tentative in nature, and the said findings arrived by the District Commission, based on the unmarked document is unsustainable. Therefore, by setting aside the order impugned, the matter may be remitted back for fresh consideration by giving liberty to the parties to mark the documents.
9. On careful consideration of the submission made, we have perused the materials placed on record.
10. Having considered the submission made, we have no doubt that the District Commission, by relying upon the unmarked documents had come to the conclusion that there is no unfair trade practice. Even if the said unmarked estimation is not taken into consideration, a perusal of the averments made in the complaint would give the clear inference that estimation given on 23.8.2012 is tentative in nature, and the credit invoice was provided for a sum of Rs.7,59,528/-. As per Ex.A1, a detailed bill with full description of the spare parts, alongwith price of the changed spare parts are given. In such circumstances, we do not find any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, we are not inclined to set aside the order for the purpose of remitting the matter to District Commission for a fresh disposal as requested by the counsel for the complainant. Accordingly, finding no merit, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Salem, in CC.No.2/2015 dt.19.6.2018. There is no order as to cost in this appeal.
R VENKATESAPERUMAL R. SUBBIAH MEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO