BEFORE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 95 OF 2015 AGAINST C.C.NO.06 OF 2015 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM RANGA REDDY
Between
T.Koteswara Rao S/o T.V.Rama Rao
Aged about 41 years, Occ: Nil
R/o Plot No.7-13-61, Sector 2A
Alkapur Township, Near Shevalayam Temple
Puppalaguda, Ranga Reddy District
Hyderabad-500075
Appellant/complainant
A N D
- GEM Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Authorized Maruti Dealer, rep. by its
Managing Director, Plot No.506-B,
Raghavendra Society, Kondapur
Hyderabad-500 084
- GEM Motors (India) Pvt., Ltd.,
Authorized Maruti Dealer, rep. by its
General Manager, Plot No.506-B,
Raghavendra Society, Kondapur
Hyderabad-500 084
- GEM Motors (India) Pvt., Ltd.,
Authorized Maruti Dealer, rep. by its
Asst. General Manager, (Mr.Sanjeev Reddy)
Plot No.506-B, Raghavendra Society,
Kondapur, Hyderabad-500 084
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant M/s A.Srilatha
Counsel for the Respondents Served
QUORUM :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
FRIDAY THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
This is an appeal filed by the complainant dissatisfied with the orders of District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy dated 30.04.205 made in CC No.06 of 2015 in dismissing the complaint.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant gave his Maruthi Alto LXi car to the opposite parties’ garage for servicing and repairs. After inspecting the vehicle, the garage people assured that the vehicle would be delivered just like a new car and estimated the cost at Rs.65,000/-. The opposite parties promised to deliver the car within one month i.e., by 15.06.2014. Complainant was regularly pursuing about his car with the opposite parties but even after 75 days the car was not ready. Thereafter the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle by paying repair charges of Rs.61,980/-. However, during the test drive, some problems were observed like noise and vibration and the same was brought to the notice of Mr.Sanjiv Reddy, Assistant General Manager of the opposite parties who assured to solve all the problems. Complainant took the car on 13.08.2014 and again he found that there was leakage of coolant water. On 16.08.2014 the car was again given at workshop with some problems. On 25.08.2014 opposite party wrote new job card with fresh problems. After two weeks the complainant took the delivery of the car reluctantly as the complainant was not satisfied with the repairs. On 18.09.2014 complainant’s car broke don at RTC X Roads. However, when a complaint was given, the technicial from nearest Maruti dealer came and identified the problem stating that the bed bolt was broken and it was felt in engine belt. On 20.09.2014 the vehicle was again given for works in the said work shop and a complaint was also lodged with Maruti Udyog. Another job card was prepared on 8.10.2014 with some details and vehicle was delivered on 22.10.2014. Even after repeated repairs, the vehicle has the following problems:
1. Noise while taking reverse gear.
2. Mileage fallen
3. Damaged battery.
4. Improper painting
5. Head Lamp not working.
6. Horn problem
7. Improper fixation of speaker.
8. Wiper blades movement not smooth. Etc.,
4. Complainant alleges that he incurred expenditure for his daily travel as the vehicle was with Opposite Party for 5 months. Hence, he claims amounts paid towards repairs to Opposite Parties, insurance, silencer cost, battery and side door rubbers etc., together with compensation and costs. Hence, the complaint.
5. Despite service of notice, the Opposite Parties remained absent.
6. During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got Exs.A1 to A20.
7. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint bearing CC No.06 of 2015 by orders dated 30.04.2015.
8. Dissatisfied with the said orders the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It is contended that the District Forum failed to give any credence to the documents filed by the complainant and thereby came to wrong conclusion. The District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that a perusal of Ex.A8 document would clearly reveal that there is mention for attending the complaint of “LH fender replace” and for which any workshop attendant has to overhaul the entire front body of the motor and in that process, the opposite parties appears to have mishandled and not assembled them in proper manner which result in after service problems. The opposite parties were deficient in rendering proper service which resulted in bringing the vehicle time and again with new complaint which did not exist earlier. The District Forum failed to consider the important factor that the opposite parties remained absent which itself speaks volumes of their attitude and behavior and the deficiency of service on their part. Had the opposite parties rendered efficient services, they ought to have contested the matter.
9. The counsel for the appellant/complainant had advanced her arguments reiterating the contents of the complaint in addition to filing written arguments on behalf of the complainant. Heard the counsel for the complainant.
10. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
11. It is the case of the complainant that he gave his Maruthi Alto LXi car to the opposite parties for getting some works done. The opposite parties gave assurance that they would deliver the car like a new car and estimated the cost at Rs.65,000/- but the opposite parties took 75 days to deliver the car. However, during the test drive the complainant found some problems like noise and vibration in the car and he bound the same to the Assistant General Manager of the opposite parties. The complainant gave his car number times on 16.08.2014, 25.08.2014, 20.09.2014 and 08.10.2014 and every time the opposite parties attended to the complaints in the car of the complainant. Ex.A16 is the RC Book in which the model of the complainant’s car was of 2006 model. Ex.A1 is the job card dated 31.05.2014 shows that the complainant was given for body repair. Ex.A8 discloses that the car was given for denting and painting besides some replacements, as the front portion of the car was damaged. As rightly observed by the District Forum that the car had taken a major hit and its front portion was damage which requires total body denting and painting. Thus, it is observed that the problems in the vehicle as pointed out by the complainant from time to time have been removed by the opposite parties and has given proper service. It appears that the complaints about the said vehicle as made by the complainant are of minor nature and they can not be categorized as the major defects. Hence on this count the opposite parties cannot be blamed and the deficiency in service do not stand against him. It is however observed that although the opposite parties has rectified most of the defects as per the complaint of the complainant, the vehicle in question was remained with them for repairs for total period of 75 days.
12. The appellant/complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove the deficiency on the part of opposite parties. The appellant/complainant had miserably failed to prove the case before the District Forum. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint in absence of any evidence to prove the contentions of the appellant in the complaint. The appellant/complainant failed to prove his case. We do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant.
13. Therefore, we do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merit in the appeal. Hence, the point framed at para No.10, supra, is answered accordingly in favour of the respondent/complainant.
In the result this appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated: 28.04.2017
