THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.483/2010

Dated this the 16^th   day of October   2015

                       (Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.                             :  President)              

                                                                       Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                                 : Member

                                                                               Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB              : Member

ORDER

Present: Beena Joseph, Member:           

            This petition is filed on 27/12/2010. The case of the complainant is that he had entrusted his vehicle  Maruthi Dzire for minor repair  to the 1^st opposite party on 13/12/2010. At the time of entrustment, opposite party told that the vehicle will be return back within five days but the opposite party could not keep their assurance. So that petitioner has to hired vehicle for his needs. Meanwhile opposite party given a spare vehicle to the complainant, it being an old one, he returned it to the opposite party No. 1 on 26/12/2010. He has filed this complaint on 27/12/2010 seeking damage of Rs.1,00,000/- for unreasonable delay and negligence of the opposite party.

            In this matter notice issued to both parties, both of them appeared and filed version stating that this complaint is not maintainable because the petitioner will not come under the purview of the consumer as per the Act. The complainant suppress some material facts regarding the previous acts occurred for the vehicle. The controller assembly of the vehicle was disorder it being an electric unit, it is to be registered with manufacturer. For that purpose, key of the vehicle are required which was not produced by the complainant. As requested by them, the complainant produced the vehicle and key on 13/12/2010. Opposite party tried to get duplicate key registered by online then the entire software had crashed as a result entire memory and registration of the vehicle got erased. Then the opposite party replaced the same, obtaining a new set from the manufacturer which obtained only on 31/12/2010. Then the vehicle delivered to the complainant on 01/01/2011. Thus there was no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of opposite party. Opposite party provided a spare vehicle and given Rs.1,500/- as fare of taxi. Hence opposite party demands for the dismissal of the complaint.

            In this matter, complainant examined as PW1, Ext. A1 to A3 marked. Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence Ext. B1 marked on their side.

Points to be considered:

1. Is there is any consumer relationship existing between the parties?
2. Is there any service deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite party in delivering the vehicle?
3. If so, what are the awards to be passed?

Point No. I: The above matter, the entrustment of the vehicle to the opposite party is admitted and there is no dispute in the repair carried out to the vehicle. Admittedly, the above vehicle was sold by the second opposite party and same was having warranty for 24 months. In this circumstances, it can be safely conclude  that there exist a consumer relationship between the parties. So this point is found in favour of the complainant.

II Point: Admittedly, the vehicle was entrusted to the opposite party on 13/10/2010 for minor repair, which is clear from Ext. A1 record. As per Ext. A1, there was no mentioning of the key complaint but the Ext. B1, Job card, it shows that the second key registration and low mileage which was additionally hand written in Ext. B1. which was quite absent in Ext. A1. Ext. B1 shows that the vehicle will be delivered on 18/12/2010 but admittedly the vehicle was delivered only on 03/01/2011. Hence there occurred fifteen days delay in delivering the vehicle after completing the works.

The version of the opposite party No. 1 states that the key system  controlled assembly of the vehicle was damaged which can be rectified only with the help of manufacturer by registering it online. Meanwhile the system became brake down, the entire memory of the system became erased. That was the reason for delay in handing over the vehicle. As per Ext. A1, there was no complaint with respect to the control assembly but on the other had Ext. B1 shows that the second key registration and low mileage complaint which seems that the same was incorporated by the opposite party without intimating the complainant, because that was hand written portion in the Ext. B1. This fact was seen from the version also. Then it can only be presume that it was stated as a defence in explaining the delay by the opposite party. Moreover there was no bill regarding the changing of control assembly. Hence it can be presume that there was an unnecessary delay of 15 days in delivering the vehicle. Hence there is negligence and service deficiency on the part of opposite party No. 1. The documents will clearly shows that the vehicle was having only minor damage, it can be repaired within a period of 2, 3 days but on the other hand it took 3 weeks time for the completion of the work that too after filing complaint before this Forum. Hence this point  is found in favour of the complainant.

            We already found that there was delay in handing over the vehicle. On the basis of this, the compensation has to be fixed. The complainant herein has not  adduced any evidence for regarding the damage sustained due to the non availability of the vehicle. In such circumstance, we cannot give a blanket order in favour of the complainant. Considering the amount of compensation, it has bear in mind that opposite party had provided a spare vehicle to the complainant which was returned by him.

            In the above circumstances, we hereby order the opposite party No. 1 to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for delay caused in handing over the vehicle, along with a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). Comply the order with, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

                          Dated this the 16^th day of October, 2015

Date of filing: 27/12/2010.

Sd/-President                            Sd/- Member               Sd/- Member

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Cash receipt issued by the opposite party

A2. Receipt issued by K.G. Prathapan

A3. Job card issued by the opposite party

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

B1. Job Card of the vehicle

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. P. Vinod (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

 None

                                                                                                        Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT