State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R.F.Motors, Vengalloor.P.O, vs Mathew, S/O Joseph, on 31 May, 2013
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/12/592 (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/04/2012 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/12/23 of District Idukki) 1. Mathew Anthinattu House,Pareekanni,Nellimattam,Kothamangalam,Ernakulam Ernakulam Kerala ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Manager,RF Motors Vengalloor,Muvattupuzha Road,Thodupuzha Kerala ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO.592/12 & 709/12
JUDGMENT DATED:31.05.2013
PRESENT:
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT.A. RADHA : MEMBER APPEAL NO.592/12 Mathew, S/o Joseph, Anthinattu house, Pareekanni.P.O, Nellimattam, Kothamangalam, : APPELLANT Ernakulam District. (By Adv: Sri. C.S.Rajmohan) Vs. R.F.Motors, Vengalloor.P.O, Muvattupuzha Road, Thodupuzha, : RESPONDENT R/by its Manager. APPEAL NO.709/12 M/s R.F.Motors(P) Ltd, Vengalloor.P.O, Thodupuzha, Idukki District, : APPELLANT R/by its Manager. (By Adv: M/s Kalkura) Vs. Mathew, S/o Joseph, Anthinattu house, Pareekanni.P.O, Nellimattam, Kothamangalam, : APPELLANT Ernakulam District. COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
These appeals are respectively filed by the complainant and opposite party in CC.23/12 in the CDRF, Idukki. The complainant was the owner of a Fiat Palio Car bearing Registration No.KL.01.AV-5121. It was alleged in the complaint that the vehicle was insured with the Reliance Insurance Company. The vehicle met with an accident in March 2001 and the front side of the vehicle was damaged. Due intimation was given to the police and the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the opposite party for repair. At that time the opposite party assured that repair works would be completed within 20 days and a job slip was also issued. Their expected amount for repair was Rs.50,000/-. After 20 days the complainant approached the opposite party several times but the repair work was not completed. The insurance company informed the complainant in October 2011 that unless the vehicle was repaired immediately the insurance claim would be rejected. Hence on 21.10.2011 the complainant approached the opposite party and issued written letter to the service manager demanding immediate repair. But the complainant received no reply. The complainant incurred extra expenditure due to the delay in repairing the vehicle. So, the complainant claimed compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party.
2. The opposite party admitted that the vehicle was insured with the Reliance Insurance Company and that the complainant had brought the vehicle to them on 5.3.2011. It was contended that the vehicle required major repairs as a result of the accident and they never assured that the repair work would be completed within 20 days. The vehicle sustained major damage to the body as well as its chasis. The complainant was informed that the repair work would take considerable time depending upon the availability of spare parts from Fiat India. He was also told that since production of Fiat Palio Cars was stopped, spare parts would not be readily available. The complainant compelled the opposite party to undertake the repair of the vehicle. Accordingly after inspection of the car they prepared estimate and gave to the complainant. The estimated amount for repair was Rs.50,000/-. After obtaining approval of the authorized surveyor of the complainant's insurer the opposite party ordered spare parts from Fiat India, Pune. However the spare parts were not readily available and considerable delay occurred in obtaining spare parts from Pune. It is admitted that the complainant had approached them several times to hand over the vehicle after repair. The delay was not wilful or due to any negligence or laches on the part of the opposite party. There was no deficiency of service on their part.
3. Before the Forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on the side of the complainant. One witness was examined on the side of the of the opposite party and Exts.R1 series of documents were marked on their side. The Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and accordingly allowed the complaint in part. The opposite party was directed to pay compensation of Rs.24,000/- for 12 months delay and Rs.5000/- as compensation towards the mental agony caused to the complainant. Cost of Rs.1000/- was also allowed. The complainant was not satisfied with the compensation awarded. Hence Appeal.592/12 is filed by him. According to the opposite party the complaint ought to have been dismissed. Hence the opposite party challenges the judgment in Appeal 709/12.
4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Forum requires any interference.
5. Admittedly the Fiat Palio car bearing registration No.KL-01-AV-5121 owned by the complainant met with an accident in March 2011. The vehicle was duly insured with the Reliance Insurance Company at that time. The vehicle was brought to the workshop of the opposite party on 5.3.2011. The opposite party issued Ext.A1 job card after inspecting the vehicle. This fact is also not disputed. As per Ext.A1 opposite party estimated that the vehicle could be repaired in 20 days and the estimated amount required for repair works would be Rs.50,000/-. It is quite obvious that even after one year the vehicle was not returned after due repairs. It is also admitted that after the estimated 20 days the complainant had approached the opposite party several times requesting them to return the vehicle after repairs. The inordinate delay ex-facie shows that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has claimed that the delay occurred in the background of the Fiat India Limited stopping production of Palio cars and the spare parts were not readily available. But it is admitted that spare parts had to be procured from Pune, that is within India and such a long delay is not justified. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that order for spare parts was issued on time and the entire delay occurred because spare parts were not sent from Pune to the opposite party. In short there is no evidence to substantiate their contention. The delay was not entirely due to the fact that spare parts were not sent to the opposite party from the Fiat India Limited, Pune. Under the above circumstances the conclusion of the Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is only to be sustained.
Regarding the quantum of compensation the complainant produced Ext.P4 series of receipts to show that he had hired rented vehicles for the use of his aged mother and to go to Church every morning. So it appears that some times luxury such as Church visit everyday can be claimed if it is at the expense of somebody else. So there is no justification in allowing the entire amount of compensation claimed. The compensation fixed by the Forum appears to be reasonable. It follows that both the appeals are devoid of merit. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed.
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER A. RADHA : MEMBER VL.
[HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR] PRESIDING MEMBER