Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/14/1752

Mrs. Anita Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chevrolet Sales India Private Limited and Others - Opp.Party(s)

09 Mar 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 15.10.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 09.03.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1752/2014

DATED THIS THE 9^th MARCH OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Mrs.Anita Rao

#290, 29^th main,

11^th cross,

J.P.Nagar I Phase,

Bengaluru-78.

 

By Adv.Sri.Viswesh Sekhar     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. ltd., Block B, Chandrapura

Industrial Estate,

District Panchmahals,

Halol-389351.

 

2. Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. ltd., Consumer Assistance Centre, (CAC) 1^st floor, Plot number 15, Sector-32, Gurgoan-122001.

 

By Adv.Sri.Adarsh Gangal

 

3. Trident Chevrolet

300/A-70, 10^th main,

36^th cross, 5^th block,

Jayanagar,

Bengaluru-41.

 

4. Trident Chevrolet,

Trident Automobiles Pvt. ltd., Sy.No.18/1B (old no.18/1C), Nayandahalli Grama,

Kengeri hobli,

Bengaluru South Taluk-26.

 

5. Trident Automobiles Pvt. ltd., Lower Palace Orchards,

Sankey Road,

Bengaluru-06.

 

By Advocates

M/s.Kruthine Law Chambers

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1 to 5 (hereinafter referred as Op.no.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction to order that the Complainant is not liable to pay any amount towards service charges, spares and labour for the fourth service of the car. Further direct them to give the Complainant’s car an additional extended warranty of 3 years from 10.06.14. Further direct them to pay Rs.2,13,300/- as damages and costs. Further direct them to pay further amount of damages as this forum may deem fit to grant till the disposal of this complaint and to pass such other orders deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, she purchased a Chevrolet Beat Petrol Car (hereinafter referred as the said car/vehicle) from Op.no.3 on 24.03.11 bearing registration no.KA05 MJ 7753. The Complainant further submits that, Op.no.1 is the manufacturer of the said car and Op.no.2 is in charge of the sales of the vehicles through tout the country through a network of dealers. The Consumer Assistance Centre is under the Op.no.2. Op.no.3 is a dealer in Bengaluru in charge of sales of the cars. Repairs and servicing of the vehicles sold by Op.no.3 are undertaken by Op.no.4. It appears that the Op.no.5 is the parent company of the Op.no.3 & 4. It is the case of the Complainant that, she had her car serviced regularly as per the maintenance schedule given in the owner’s manual. The car has a 1 lakh km. or 3 years, whichever occurs earlier warranty. The car has undergone services within the stipulated times and at the stipulated intervals. Complainant took particular care of the car and has always had it repaired and serviced only by authorized service agents of Op.no.1 & 2. The services were performed by Op.no.4 at the correct intervals to ensure optimum performance of the car. The Complainant had implicit faith in Op.no.4 and has paid for periodic oil, coolant and change of other consumables without murmur and always believed in good faith and coolant, oil and other consumables are replenished as required by the Op.no.4. The Complainant further submits that, 3 year extended warranty on her car expired in March 2014 when the car had undergone 3 services and run about 35000 kms. In order to ensure that the car performs smoothly and has a long life span, gave the car for the forth paid service when the car had run 45060 kms. As per the claims of the Ops, the car should run smoothly and is due for the next routine service only after 10000 kms or six months, whichever is earlier occurs. The Complainant took delivery of the car on 17.05.14 believing in good faith that all the necessary servicing and repair work, including the oil and coolant change were carried out. The Op.no.4 billed the Complainant for the same and she paid for it in good faith thinking that the same had been done. Op.no.4 did not discover any leakage of oil or coolant during this paid service. The Complainant further submits that, during her routine drives from Bengaluru to Mangalore and back, as part of her work schedule for her Ph.D., had the battery of the car replaced at Mangalore at the authorized dealer of the Op.no.1 and returned to Bengaluru. The said dealer, Frontline Motors, only replaced the battery as specifically sought by the Complainant and the Complainant was able to return to Bengaluru. The mileage reading of the Car was about 46,200/- when she returned and during the entire trip, there were no warning lights or any other indication of any malfunction. The Complainant further submits that, on 10.06.14 when the car’s mileage reading was 46264, the car did not start at all. This was just 24 days after the service and after the car had covered only 1204 kms. It had to be towed to Op.no.4 workshop. The representative of the Op.no.4 has while towing away the car, made a note in the breakdown report, that there was “No Oil, No Coolant” and charged Rs.500/- as service charges. The Complainant had to bear an additional expenditure of Rs.1800/- for towing the car. In all, the Complainant had spent Rs.2,300/- on 10.06.14 to ensure that the car which had evidently broken down due to there being no oil or coolant was sent to Op.no.4 workshop (as per the written report of the Op.no.4 representative). The Complainant further submits that, she did not hear anything about the progress of the repairs/delivery on her car from Op.no.4 for 81 days (10.06.14 to 29.08.14) in spite of many repeated emails and phone calls. Ten days after the Op.no.4 received the Complainant’s legal notice, he has sent an email claiming that the car is repaired and ready for delivery if she pays 50% of the cost of the spares used for repair. Meanwhile, she waited patiently for more than 1½ months and then raised a complaint with Op.no.1 & 2 on 31.07.14, mentioning an earlier telephonic complaint bearing no.7423418. There was no satisfactory response to her complaint. The Complainant had sought details as to the exact nature of the problem with the car and when she can expect the car to be delivered to her. The Complainant further submits that, on the next day, 01.08.14, Mr.Stanley of Op.no.2 replied to her mail and stated that the matter regarding her mail “needs to be investigated” and that Mr.Darshan, Service Manager of Op.no.4 has been instructed to provide “necessary possible assistance” in the matter. The Complainant received an email from Mr.Darshan on 02.08.14, he claimed that sufficient engine oil and adequate coolant was filled in the car but he has not produced any credible evidence to show that the oil and coolant were actually filled.  If the oil and coolant had actually been filled, the car would not have come to a grinding halt and failed to start within 24 days the alleged replacement of engine oil and coolant. On 11.08.14, Complainant received another mail from Mr.T.Ashwin, the Zonal After Sales Manager in response to her mail to Op.no.1 & 2. In the said email, he stated that for the first time, the issue of engine performance is raised by Ops themselves. Ops have admitted in the email the following:

“However as a goodwill gesture, we could work out a support on cost sharing on spare parts only. The support would be to an extent of 50% on spare parts only as per the list mentioned by the dealership.”

However, the Complainant did not ask for any of the above mentioned but only sought a technical report as to exactly what the matter was with the car so that she can assess for herself the damage and pay the bill and take delivery. Without addressing these concerns, the Ops have volunteered to give a concession for reasons best known to them. The Complainant further submits that, she has waited patiently for more than 2 months at this stage and realizing that there was no point in waiting any further, caused a legal notice to Ops on 14.08.14. Ten days later, i.e. on 29.08.14, Mr.T.Ashwin sent a mail stating that the repairs on the car have been completed on 23.08.14 and she can take delivery of the same after making a 50% payment as earlier promised. Op.no.5 in its reply letter dtd.02.09.14 denies liability and has made unsubstantiated and fanciful claims in the said notice. All the contents of the said reply notice, except in so far as the matters of record are concerned, are baseless and do not come to the aid of Ops who is clearly guilty of gross deficiency of service. The Complainant further submits that, she is under no obligation to take delivery of the car as and when the Ops want her to. It is obvious that the repairs have been carried out and the car made ready for delivery only after the receipt of the legal notice. The Ops have not explained the delay from 10.06.14 to 29.08.14 a period of nearly 90 days. The Complainant was kept in the dark as to what transpired during this period despite her repeated requests. The Ops have not provided any technical report as to what exactly was the flaw in the car causing it to come to a grinding halt within 24 days of the service after having covered only 1204 kms, although the Ops have insisted that the coolant and engine oil were replaced and according to their own proclaimed service condition, the car ought to have run smoothly for 10,000/- kms or six months whichever is earlier. There is a gross deficiency of service in that Op.no.4 did not replace the oil and coolant as required in spite of billing the Complainant for the same. The strange silence on the part of Ops till 54^th day when they raised the issue of engine performance for the first time and insisted on a road test before delivery lends credence to the suspicions of the Complainant that engine oil and coolant were never replaced as required. The Complainant further submits that this amounts to gross negligence and deficiency of service and may have caused irreparable damage to the cylinder head, pistons and other parts of the engine needing their replacement. This would affect the performance of the car in the long run and since this is a direct fallout of the deficiency of service, the Ops are liable to compensate he Complainant both monetarily and by assuring the Complainant that there would be no adverse effect on the engine by extending the warranty on the car for a further period of 3 years from the date of repairs having been carried out. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op.no.1 & 2 did appear and filed common objections, so also Op.no.3 to 5 did appear and filed common objections to the complaint filed by the Complainant. The sum and substance of the version filed by Op.no.1 & 2 and Op.no.3 to 5 are appears to be similar in nature. Ops have taken specific contention that the contents of the complaint are wholly false, frivolous and vexatious filed with malafide intention, making unlawful gains. The Complainant has suppressed the material facts, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Complainant’s car bearing registration no.KA05 MJ 7753 is beyond the purview of warranty which is 3 years. Hence the claim of the Complainant seeking free spares, services etc., beyond the period of warranty. Ops also explained with regard to the manufacturing process, tests, quality, design, performance, safety etc., which are found at para 4 to 5 of the objections filed by Op.no.1 & 2 and at para 3, 13 & 15 of   the objections filed by Op.no. 3 to 5. Op.no.1 & 2 have specifically taken the contention that on 20.12.11 the car met with a major accident and was brought for repair with odometer regarding 15242 kms and underwent a major accident repair till 11.01.12 at in which the radiator, oil sump, AC condenser, Fan, oil sump etc., have been replaced. With regard to the service of the said car, Op.no.1 & 2 specifically stated in para 8 of its version which reads thus:

Types of service	Recommended date	Actual date of reporting	Gap in days/kms
RAC-1month/1000 km which ever earlier	24.04.2011	16.04.11 & 1098 kms	Before time & 98 kms excess
1st free service – 6 months/5000 kms which ever earlier – old schedule was prevailing then	24.09.2011	09.07.11 & 6053 kms	Before time & 1053 kms excess
2nd free service – 1 year/10000 kms which ever earlier	24.03.2012	18.10.11 & 10990 kms	Before time & 990 kms excess
1st paid service – 1.5 years/15000 kms which ever earlier	24.09.2012	08.06.12 & 18037 kms	Before time & 3037 kms excess
30000 km/2 year service – as new schedule changed in May 2012	24.03.2013	05.03.13 & 29915 kms	Before time
37500 km/ 2.5 years	24.09.2013	11.09.13 & 37043 kms	Before time
45000 km/3 years	24.03.2014	16.05.14 & 45060 kms	Delay by 53 days and 60 km excess

 

The Ops submit that the car has undergone services which in the stipulated times and at the stipulated intervals is false and misleading with reference to the detail description given in para 12 of Op.no.1 & 2 version. The services were performed by Op.no.4 at the correct intervals to ensure optimum performance of the car. As per the car history card on 11.09.13 the car had already run 37043 kms and thereafter by 16.05.14 the car had run 45060 kms. It is also the contention of Ops that, the Complainant has took the delivery of the car on 17.05.14 to her satisfaction to which her authorized representative has signed on the service delivery note. The said car is equipped with warning systems, inter-alia, for engine oil level and over-heating of engine. This fact might have been not noticed by the Complainant or her representative. With regard to the mileage reading is concerned, that on 10.06.14 when the car’s mileage reading was 46264 the car did not start at all and that this was just 24 days after the service and after the car had covered only 1204 kms is concerned, the Ops have stated this as misleading factor. The further allegations that, car was towed to Op.no.4 workshop and that the representative of Op.no.4 has while towing away the car made a note in the brake down report bearing bill number 517 dtd.10.06.14 that there was “No oil, No Coolant” and charged Rs.500/- as service charges are matter of record in that the said examination was made in the present of the Complainant’s representative who has counter-signed the said report. The other allegations are denied by Ops.  Complainant has brought the said car on 10.06.14 for repair, wherein it was noticed that ‘no oil and no coolant.’ In this context, Ops stated that not starting of the car is due to grinding is not acceptable. The driving depends on the different modes that may be one of the reasons for the same. As the car was out of warranty period, hence the Ops proposed the Complainant to bear 50% of cost of the spare parts as goodwill and it was intimated to the Complainant. But she was reluctant to answer with regard to pay 50% cost of the spare parts. It is also the contention of Op.no.1 & 2 that, it has answered to the notice issued by the Complainant through its advocate that the fact has suppressed by the Complainant. So, the overall contention of Ops are that, Complainant as suppressed the material fact. Ops have properly attended the complaints of the Complainant with regard to her car. As the car is out of warranty period as a goodwill they proposed to pay 50% cost of the spare parts, instead of properly responding, she raised untenable objections and made unlawful demands. Further there is no issue in respect of manufacturing defect. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

 

          4. The Complainant to substantiate her case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-A1 to A14. The Divisional Manager-After sales of Op.no.1 & 2 and Asst., General Manager–Admn., of Op.no.3 to 5 filed affidavit evidence. Op.no.1 & 2 got marked the documents as Ex-B1 to B5. Both filed written arguments. Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so, whether she is entitled for the relief sought for ?    
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: Partly in the affirmative  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  Para 1 to 4 of the Complainant are self-explanatory in respect of avocation of the Complainant and purchase of the car and also the regular service of the car as per Owner’s manual. The relevant portion of the complaint starts from para 5. Before embarking on the relevant facts of the case, we place reliance on the following decisions cited by learned counsel for the Complainant, so also learned counsel for the Ops:

(1) Balaji Motors v. Devendra and Anr., (NCDRC) 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 412

(2) Dr.Rajeev Kapoor v. Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. ltd., (NCDRC) 2014 SCC OnLine 936

(3) M/s.Mandovi Motors v. Pravenchandra Shetty and Maruti Udyog ltd., (NCDRC) 2013 SCC OnLine 854

(4) Maruthi Suzuki India ltd., v. Soma Shekarsanganbasappa Khadbadi and Ors., (NCDRC) 2015 SCC OnLine 2604

(5) Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243

 

The decision cited by the learned counsel for Op.no.1 & 2 is reported in I (2007) CPJ 101 in the case of Rajiv Dhiman vs. Maruti Udyog ltd., and Ors.,

 

          8. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Complainant at sl.no.1 to 4 are with regard to “non-attending the vehicles problems properly though they were under warranty period.” The citation at sl.no.5 is with regard to the “jurisdiction to entertain complaints of consumers.” The decision cited by learned counsel for the Op.no.1 & 2 is with regard to the “Hydro static locking due to ingress of water in engine- Breakdown of vehicle – not manufacturing defect – Alleged defect not covered under extended warranty – present defect caused by misuse/ negligence/abnormal use/ insufficient care, in this context, Ops not liable.”

 

          9. We place reliance on the said decisions. The facts of the said decisions and facts of the present case on hand are quite different. In the instant case, extended warranty of 3 years of the said car was comes to an end in the month of March 2014 when the car had undergone 3 services and run about 35000 kms. The issue starts after 4^th paid service, when the said car had run 45060 kms. As per the say of the Ops, the car should run smoothly and is due for the next routine service only after 10000 kms or six months, whichever is earlier. For the 4^th paid service is concerned, the repair order no.3863, the bill for the said service and repairs, invoice no.001068 dtd.17.05.14 is found at Ex-A4. It is not in dispute that, Complainant took the delivery of the said car on 17.05.14 believing in good faith that all the necessary servicing and repair work, including the oil and coolant change were carried out. The grievance of the Complainant are narrated from para 7 onwards of the complaint. On 10.06.14 when the car’s mileage reading was 46264 kms, it did not start at all. This was just 24 days after the service and after the car had covered only 1204 kms. Hence, she towed the car to Op.no.4 workshop. The representative of the Op.no.4 while towing away the car, made a note in the breakdown report marked as Ex-A5 bearing bill no.517, dtd.10.06.14 that there was “No Oil, No Coolant” and charged Rs.500/- as service charges. She has also bear an additional expenditure of Rs.1800/- for towing the said car. In all, she spent an amount of Rs.2,300/- on 10.06.14 to ensure that the car which had evidently broken down due to there being no oil or coolant.

 

          10. With regard to the 4^th paid service of the said car is concerned, she has paid for the change of oil and coolant. Further it is the grievance of the Complainant that, the car which had evidently broken down due to there being no oil or coolant. To falsify the grievance of the Complainant, Ops have taken contention that, the said car equipped with warning systems, inter-alia, for engine oil level and over-heating of engine. The Complainant has driven the car ignoring warning systems, inter-alia, for engine oil level and over-heating of engine and it leads to engine seized and subsequently the said car brought to the service for repairs. It is also the specific contention of the Ops that, the mode of driving change from person to person. If the Complainant was diligent, on seeing    warning systems, inter-alia, for engine oil level and over-heating of engine, the problem would not arisen. In the reply notice marked as Ex-A14 issued by Op.no.5 in response to the notice issued by the Complainant, wherein it is stated that on 16.06.14, Ops have received the car in towing condition with a odometer reading of 46264 kms. On earlier event, Complainant left the car for service at 45060 kms reading at that juncture Ops have not carried out the replacement of coolant, further Ops have not carried out the replacement of coolant since it was not part of the schedule service at 45000 kms. Further no vehicle/car can run without engine oil or coolant to the extent of 1204 kms after the due service i.e. till the engine got seized. Looking to the specific contention taken by Op.no.5 that, it had not carried out the replacement of coolant when the Complainant left the car for service at 45060 kms reading. Now, we would like to place reliance on the contents of 4^th paid service bill found at Ex-A4 and part thereof, wherein they charged Rs.1100/- for engine oil.  Op.no.5 specifically stated in reply notice that, it did not carry out the replacement of coolant since it was not part of the service schedule at 45000 kms. When such being the fact, charge of Rs.1100/- for engine oil is to be refundable.

 

11. Now, coming to attending the grievance of the Complainant, after leaving the said car for repair on 10.06.14, the said car was out of warranty, in this context, Ops have given offer to the Complainant to pay 50% for the purpose of spare parts. 

 

          12. As per the say of the Complainant the break down, grinding halt and also not starting of the said car was on account of “no oil and no coolant”. This fact is falsified by the Op.no.1 & 2 with reference to the contention taken at para 14 of its version stating that, battery of the said car replaced at Mangalore at the authorized dealer of the Op.no.1 and returned to Bengaluru and that the said dealer, Frontline Motors, only replaced the battery as specifically sought by the Complainant and the Complainant was able to return to Bengaluru. In that event, there was no any issue of coolant and also of oil. When such being the fact, the said car was run more than 1204 kms without oil and coolant is not acceptable. Grinding halt and failed to start within 24 days from the alleged replacement of engine oil and coolant are appears to be misleading. On meticulously going through the available materials on record, one thing is clear that grinding halt and failed to start within 24 days appears to be due negligent act on the part of Complainant in driving the vehicle as the vehicle has equipped with warning system. If the Complainant is very much diligent, she ought to have taken the assistance of the qualified engineer/technician to test the said car in the event of giving vague answers by Op.no.4 in repairing the said car, but she did not do so. 

 

13. Now, we discuss the issue of delay in repairing the said car. To substantiate her stand, she has placed reliance on the contents of legal notice marked as Ex-A12 to which Op.no.5 answered by denying the contents of the notice by its reply letter marked as Ex-A14. Looking to the available materials on record, none of the Ops placed any relevant materials in respect of taking steps to get repair the said car from 10.06.14 to 14.08.14 i.e till issuance of the notice to Ops. Further to substantiate her case, she also placed reliance on the contents of Ex-A11 which is the email correspondence. Part of Ex-A11 email dtd.01.08.14 from Mr.Stanley of Op.no.2 to Complainant, which reads thus:

Dear Ms.Anita Rao,

This is in reference to your email to us concerning your Chevrolet Vehicle.

We have gone through the contents of your e-mail and understand your concern, since the matter needs to be investigated in regard to your feedback, our enfranchised dealership M/s.Trident, Bengaluru is being requested for assistance and clarification on the matter.

Also, we are advising Service Manager of M/s.Trident to provide you necessary possible assistance in the matter.

 

Complainant sent mail dtd.05.08.14 to Mr.Stanley of Op.no.2 which reads thus:

Dear Stanley Massey,

As Trident Chevrolet General Motor, Bengaluru has not replied to my clarification and it is almost 2 months, I am left with no other alternative but to take recourse to legal action to protect my rights and interest as a consumer, this is for your information.

 

14. With regard to the delayed attitude of the Ops are concerned, she placed reliance on the contents of Ex-A10 which is an email dtd.02.08.14 sent to her by Mr.Darshan, Service Manager of Op.no.4, which reads thus:

Madam,

This is in continuation with the telephonic and earlier clarifications which was shared with Mr.Sagar and Dr Shankar Narayan regarding the concern of the vehicle not starting. However, please find the below clarifications for your queries.

1. We would like to confirm you that on your visit for the periodic maintenance service of 45000 kms on 16.05.14 all the necessary repair work was carried out as per the periodic maintenance list prescribe by General Motors. As a best practice in the industry to reconfirm on all the work carried out we at Trident follow a stringent final inspection process which was carried out in your vehicle also. With all the above practices which we follow we once again assure you that the vehicle was filled with sufficient engine oil and adequate coolant. (please find the attached invoice copy for your ready reference)
2. We regret the delay in the repair process which is happening in your vehicle. We would like to assure you that we are in continuous co-ordination with General Motors team with regular updates and are working as per the guidelines and instructions given from them. We will keep you posted on the developments regarding the work which is happening and kindly bear with us since the exact delivery date can be confirmed only after further inspection by the technical team.   

 

15. If the above email texts are strictly construed, one thing is clear that, there was delay in repair process. When such being the fact, Complainant is certainly entitled for the compensation on the delayed action taken by the Ops to get repair the said car.

 

16. With regard to the compensation is concerned, Complainant in her complaint at para 18 given the detail particulars which reads thus:

 

1	Travelling from Mangalore to Bengaluru and back by alternate car and bus	Rs.50,000/-
2	Local auto and taxis for three months at Rs.5,000/- per month	Rs.15,000/-
3	Service and towing charges	Rs.2,300/-
4	Legal expenses	Rs.25,000/-
5	Bill of the Ops after 50% discount	Rs.40,000/-
6	Mental agony and Torture	Rs.81,000/-
	Total	Rs.2,13,300/-

 

17. In view of the making delay in repair and handing over the said car to the Complainant by Ops, she has spent Rs.50,000/- to travel from Mangalore to Bengaluru and back by alternate car and bus are concerned, there are no any receipts/tickets. Further she has spent an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.5,000/- per month) for using local auto and taxis are concerned, also there are no receipts. In the absence of the tickets and taxi receipts for the alleged amount paid by the Complainant, only guess work is to be carried out. In our considered view, with regard to availing car, bus, auto and taxi, if an amount of Rs.25,000/- is fixed, we hope, the said amount is substantiate amount. With regard to the service and towing charges are concerned, she has spent Rs.2,300/- which are negated as it is the Complainant who has taken the said car to Op.no.4 for service to get it repair. Hence we declined to grant of Rs.2,300/-. But at the time of 4^th paid service, Ops have charged Rs.1,100/- for engine oil, the said amount is refundable to the Complainant. With regard to legal expenses of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, we scaledown it to only Rs.1,000/-. With regard to bill of the Ops after 50% discount is concerned, the Complainant has shown Rs.40,000/- for which there is no bill. In the forgoing paragraphs, we have stated that, the said car was repaired on sharing money to the extent of 50% of the cost of spare parts. In the absence of the said bill, we declined to grant the said amount of Rs.40,000/-. With regard to mental agony and torture, she sought relief for an amount of Rs.81,000/-, which appears to be very very exorbitant. As the Ops did not respond properly to get repair the said car well with in time, hence an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded being the compensation. Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that, in repairing the said car, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Ops but with regard to the delay in service is concerned, we found there is deficiency of service on the part of Ops as they did not respond till the issuance of the notice by the Complainant. 

 

18. Now the question that crops up for our consideration is, to whom the liability is fastened. Op.no.1 & 2 in their version have taken specific contention that, Op.no.5 is the dealer of Op.no.1 and Op.no.3 & 4 are the branches of Op.no.5 and are not separate entities. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that, liability is jointly and severally on all the Ops. Anyhow, Op.no.4 is the authorized centre, wherein the said car was serviced, hence we fastened the liability on Op.no.4 to realize the said amount as stated in para 17 of this order. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 partly in the affirmative. 

 

19. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed in part.

 

2. Op.no.1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,100/- being the engine oil charges, an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the expenses incurred by the Complainant to travel from Mangalore to Bengaluru by using alternate vehicles and also to pay compensation for an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards suffering mental agony and torture. Since the repair work of the said car was not carried out by Op.no.4 well within time, we fastened the liability on it, to realize the said amounts within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the said amounts carries interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization.

 

          3. We also direct Op.no.4 to pay the litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer in the open forum and pronounced on 9^th March 2018).

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Smt.Anitha Rao, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	RC
Ex-A2	Maintenance record
Ex-A3	Repair order
Ex-A4	Bill dtd.17.05.14
Ex-A5	Brake down report
Ex-A6	Bill (towing)
Ex-A7 to A11	Email dtd.29.08.14, 31.07.14, 01.08.14, 02.08.14, 11.08.14
Ex-A12	Legal notice dtd.14.08.14
Ex-A13	Postal acknowledgement
Ex-A14	Reply notice by Op.no.5

 

 

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Smt.Shrisha Kadandale, who being the Divisional Manager – After Sales of Op.no.1 & 2 was examined.

Sri.Narsimhan.G.N. who being the Asst., General Manager-Admn., of Op.no.3 to 5 was examined

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party no.1 & 2

 

Ex-B1	iCAT certificate for Chevrolet beat car
Ex-B2	Vehicle history sheets
Ex-B3	Reply notice dtd.13.10.14
Ex-B4	Owner’s manual
Ex-B5	Retailer sales and service agreement between Op.no.1 & 2 and Op.no.3 to 5

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT