State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd vs Sajeesh K.Lukose, on 30 October, 2010
Daily Order
First Appeal No. A/10/562 (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/08/2010 in Case No. CC/10/178 of District Kottayam) 1. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT LTD MARIKKAR ENGINEER PVT LTD,ELLOR ROAD ERNAKULAM KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SAJEESH .K.LUKOSE KARUKAMALAYL HOUSE,PERUMPAIKAD KOTTAYAM KERALA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT PRESENT: ORDER
AKERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.562/10 JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT Skoda Auto India Pvt.Ltd.
Rep by authorized signatory Marikar Engineers Pvt.Ltd. -- APPELLANT Skoda Service, IV/1389, Eloor Road, North Kalamassery, Cochin. (By Adv.G.S.Kalkura & Ors.) Vs. Sajeesh K.Lukose, Karukamaliyil House Perumpaikad.P.O -- RESPONDENT Kottayam. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.178/10 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to refund the repair charges amounting to Rs.21,202/- and pay a compensation of Rs.7,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-.
2. The case of the complainant is that the Skoda Car purchased by him on 12.11.09 had to be repaired for defect in clutch with fly wheel assembly on 26. 26.5.10 ie; within the warranty period. After repairs the car was returned only on 26.6.10. Further a sum of Rs.21,201/- was charged for repairs although, the repairs were effected with the warranty period. He had to engage a private vehicle as the car was returned after a long time.
3. The appellants were ex-parte before the Forum.
4. We find that the Forum has passed a considered order and has found that within a short period of purchase, the mechanism became defective and further it is after about one month that the vehicle was returned after repairs. It is further stated that the notice received from the Forum was forwarded to the Legal Department at Thiruvananthapuram and that the same was mistakenly misplaced. We find that the complainant cannot be penalized for the inefficient working of the office of the appellant. We find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
The office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
s/L [HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT