DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 26th day of March 2024.
Filed on: 01/07/2017
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C No. 261/2017
The Complainant
Richu Paul S/o Paulose, Kurialathottathil House, Kunnackal P.O, Valakom , Muvattupuzha-682316.
(By Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha-686 661)
Vs
Opposite parties
- M/s Izuzu Motors India Pvt. Ltd. 9th Floor, Prestige centre Office Block Vijaya Forum Mall No.183, NSK Salal Vadapalani, Chennai-600026 Represented by the Managing Director
(o.p1 rep. by Adv.Mohammed Sahab, Adv.Jose Joseph, 1st Floor, Edathil Buildings, Market Road, Ernakulam-35)
2. M/s Izuzu, Manikantan Automobiles Limited, Door No. C C 29/1394, Near Vyttila Junction, Vyttila P.O, Kochi-19, Represented by its Managing Director.
(O.p 2 rep. by Adv.P.Ramakrishnan, Adv.T.C.Krishna Adv.Pratap Abraham Varghese, Sree Sadan, azad Road, Kaoor, Kochi-17)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by a complainant who purchased a V Cross A/c vehicle from the opposite party on October 27, 2016, for Rs. 13,13,233. The complainant financed the purchase through a vehicle loan from the State Bank of Travancore and secured bumper-to-bumper insurance. After the vehicle was involved in an accident on December 22, 2016, it was taken to the opposite-party workshop for repairs. However, six months passed without the repairs being completed, and the complainant received no satisfactory explanation for the delay.
The delay in repair work has been attributed to the lack of technical staff and equipment at the workshop, which the complaint alleges indicates a deficiency in service by the opposite party. This has resulted in the complainant being deprived of the use of his vehicle, forcing him to hire taxis for his work as a road safety contractor. Despite not having access to his vehicle, the complainant has continued to pay the loan EMIs and has lost the insurance premium for six months.
The complaint seeks daily compensation of Rs. 2,000 from one month after the vehicle was entrusted for repairs until the completion of the work, plus Rs.1,00,000 for the loss of vehicle use, mental anguish, and hardship caused by the opposite party's actions. The complainant requests that the commission grant these reliefs along with the costs of the proceedings.
2) Notice
The Commission sent a notice to the opposite parties, who subsequently appeared and submitted their versions.
3)THE VERSION OF THE FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY
The 1st Opposite Party in response to the Complaint denies all allegations, asserting that the Complaint lacks merit and should be dismissed. They stated that the Complaint is based on conjecture and surmise, containing misconceived, vexatious, and false claims, constituting an abuse of legal process.
Regarding the allegations against them as the manufacturer of the vehicle, they contend that their liability is limited to the manufacturer's warranty, which does not cover damage caused by accidents. They emphasize that the Dealer Agreement establishes a principal-to-principal relationship between them and the 2nd Opposite Party, a dealer, absolving them of liability for any alleged deficiency in service by the dealer. They assert there is no contractual relationship between them and the Complainant regarding the sale of the vehicle.
Furthermore, they provide additional information suggesting that the Complainant delayed confirming repair instructions and insurance decisions, resulting in prolonged repair time and costs borne by the 2nd Opposite Party. Despite the repairs being completed to the Complainant's satisfaction, the Complainant's payment for the repairs bounced due to insufficient funds, leaving the 2nd Opposite Party uncompensated.
The 1st Opposite Party accuses the Complainant of contributory negligence and unjust enrichment, urging the dismissal of the Complaint with costs, condemning the Complainant's actions, and alleging fabricated claims for financial gain.
4)THE VERSION OF THE SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY
The second opposite party contests the maintainability of the complaint on legal and factual grounds, suggesting it was filed speculatively. They are a dealership for world-renowned, high-quality passenger cars made by the first opposite party, having taken over from M/s. Manikandan Automobiles Ltd. to M/s Manikandan Motors Ltd. The vehicle in question, an Isuzu D Max V Cross Passenger bought on 27/10/2016, came with a warranty and was in perfect condition at delivery.
The accident on 22/12/2016 was immediately addressed by the second opposite party, with efforts made to facilitate the insurance claim process. Despite their affiliation with certain insurance providers, the complainant's insurance was with an external company, requiring him to front the repair costs for reimbursement. The repair delay was attributed to the wait for the insurance company's decision on whether the damage constituted a total loss and the complainant's refusal to advance payment for the needed parts.
The total repair cost was Rs. 7,98,807, which the complainant attempted to settle through a cheque, under the condition it would be covered by the insurance company. However, the insurance payment never materialized, leading to the cheque being returned for insufficient funds. The second opposite party stated that the service delay was not due to their fault but was caused by the complainant and the insurance company's inaction. They claim to have provided all possible assistance and deny any service deficiency, requesting the dismissal of the complaint as baseless and without merit.
5) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 8 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A-8.
The complainant was examined as PW1.
Exhibit A-1: Copy of the registration certificate
Exhibit A-2: Copy of the G D entry
Exhibit A-3: A copy of the tax invoice
Exhibit A-4: Copy of the insurance policy.
Exhibit A-5: Copy of the letter dated 31-10-2017 issued by the National Insurance Company.
Exhibit A-6: Copy of the reply issued by the second O.P
Exhibit A-7: Copy of the letter issued by the National Insurance Company.
Exhibit A-8: The Retail Invoice issued by the opposite party dated 09.01.2017.
The first opposite party has submitted one document.
- The Resolution was Passed by The Board of Directors of Isuzu Motor India Private Limited On 15 May 2015.
The second opposite party has submitted a proof affidavit and 10 documents.
1: A true copy of an email from the insurance company dated
January 5, 2017, which includes the forwarded claim form.
2: A true copy of an email dated January 9, 2017, forwarding the initial repair estimate.
3: A true copy of a follow-up email dated February 22, 2017.
4: A true copy of another email dated March 1, 2017.
5: A true copy of an email dated March 16, 2017, which forwards a revised supplementary estimation.
6: A true copy of an email, also dated March 16, 2017, sending an Excel file with estimation details.
7: A true copy of an email dated March 21, 2017.
8: A True Copy of the ledger covering the period from April 1, 2017, to January 17, 2023.
9: A True Copy of a letter dated February 18, 2021, issued by the complainant.
10: A true copy of the workshop order/job card dated January 9, 2017.
6) The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
7) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
Regarding the case presented to the Commission, concerning a grievance according to Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, filed by a complainant against the Opposite Party due to a delay in the repair of a V Cross A/c vehicle acquired on October 27, 2016, along with subsequent related problems.
The complaint focuses on the significant delay in repairing the complainant's car, which was damaged in an accident on December 22, 2016. The vehicle was given to the second party for repairs the following day, but the completion of the work took seven months, with the car being returned on July 29, 2017. The second party attributed the delay to the time taken to receive approval from the insurance company. However, the complainant argues that the delay was primarily due to the second party's error in entering the wrong registration number on the initial invoice, which was dated January 9, 2017. This mistake led to delays in getting the insurance company's approval for the repairs. Despite these issues, the insurance company eventually paid Rs. 7,59,303 for the repair work, as acknowledged by the second opposite party. However, the second opposite party demanded an additional Rs. 84,709 before releasing the car, forcing the complainant to issue a cheque that ultimately bounced due to insufficient funds. The complainant later paid Rs. 40,000, and the case regarding the bounced cheque was withdrawn. The second opposite party's reliance on a letter (Document-9) to claim that the complainant had agreed to settle the case is disputed by the complainant, who asserts that no such assurance was provided. The complainant seeks the complaint to be allowed, highlighting the unjustified delay and the financial demands placed upon them.
Concerning the issue of the delay in repair work approval, it is presented that the cause of the delay was due to an incorrect registration number being entered on the original invoice (Exhibit A8) dated January 9, 2017, by the second opposite party. This error is referenced in Exhibits A6 and A7. If the second opposite party had been meticulous in preparing the initial invoice, the approval from the relevant authority would have been obtained much sooner.
The written arguments filed by the first Opposite Party (manufacturer of the vehicle) advocate for the dismissal of the complaint lodged for an alleged delay in repairing the vehicle. The main points of the argument are summarized as follows:
- Principal-to-Principal Basis: The first Opposite Party argues that it operates on a principal-to-principal basis with the second Opposite Party (Dealer), implying that the manufacturer is not responsible for after-sales services such as repair, maintenance, or customer relations, which are the purview of the Dealer.
- Supreme Court Precedent: The manufacturer cites two Supreme Court cases (Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Antonio Paulo Vaz & Anr., 2021) to support their argument that a manufacturer is not liable for service deficiencies by a Dealer when the relationship is on a principal-to-principal basis.
- Limited Liability: The first Opposite Party states its liability is limited to the manufacturer's warranty and does not cover damage from accidents. In this case, they argue that the damage to the vehicle was due to an accident and thus not covered under warranty.
- Investigation and Repair Efforts: Despite claiming no liability, the first Opposite Party details their investigation into the complaint. They note that the vehicle suffered extensive damage in an accident and repair instructions from the complainant and their insurer were delayed. They also highlight the efforts made by the second Opposite Party to commence repairs without an advance payment, indicating a goodwill gesture towards the complainant.
- Financial Aspects: It is noted that the total repair cost was borne by the second Opposite Party as a special consideration. However, a cheque from the complainant for the repair costs was returned due to insufficient funds, and neither the complainant nor their insurer has refunded the repair costs to the second Opposite Party.
- Allegations of Negligence and Misrepresentation: The first Opposite Party accuses the complainant of contributory negligence for delaying the repair process and enriching themselves at the expense of the second Opposite Party. They argue that the complainant has approached the commission with unclean hands and fabricated facts to secure additional financial benefits.
The first Opposite Party concludes by requesting the dismissal of the complaint against them, emphasizing that the responsibility for repair and maintenance lies with the Dealer and not with the manufacturer, supported by legal precedent and their investigation findings.
We have carefully heard the submissions made at length by the learned Counsels representing the parties and have also considered the entire evidence on record.
In the matter before the Commission, involving a complaint under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by a complainant against the Opposite Parties for the delay in repairing a V Cross A/c vehicle purchased on October 27, 2016, and subsequent issues arising thereof, the Commission has carefully considered the submissions, evidence, and legal arguments presented by both sides.
The crux of the complaint lies in the alleged deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, particularly regarding the undue delay in repairing the complainant's vehicle, which was involved in an accident on December 22, 2016. The delay has been attributed to several factors by the Opposite Parties, including procedural delays in insurance approval and the availability of technical staff and equipment.
Deficiency in Service and Negligence
Upon examination of the evidence and submissions, it is clear that the complainant has been significantly inconvenienced by the Opposite Parties' inability to complete the repair work in a reasonable timeframe. The complainant, a road safety contractor, has been deprived of the use of his vehicle, resulting in additional expenses and considerable mental anguish. Despite the complainant's continuous payment of loan EMIs and insurance premiums, the Opposite Parties failed to expedite the repair process.
In the landmark judgment of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta, 1994 AIR 787, 1994 SCC (1) 243, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India elaborated on the scope of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, emphasizing the protection of consumer rights against such deficiencies and practices. Drawing from this precedent, it is clear that the opposite parties' failure to act as per the contractual obligations and statutory duties constitutes a deficiency in service.
This case emphasizes the duty of care owed by service providers and the right of consumers to expect timely and efficient service delivery.
The evidence, particularly the incorrect entry of the registration number in the repair invoice and the subsequent delay in receiving insurance approval, highlights a lack of due diligence by the Opposite Parties. The additional financial demands made upon the complainant for the release of the repaired vehicle further exacerbate the perceived deficiency in service.
The Opposite Parties have not provided satisfactory explanations for the delay in repair work, nor have they demonstrated adequate steps were taken to mitigate the complainant's inconvenience and financial loss. The contractual relationship between the first and second Opposite Parties does not absolve them of their collective responsibility to ensure customer satisfaction and adherence to the Consumer Protection Act's stipulations.
Liability of the Opposite Parties
Considering the above, the Commission finds the Opposite Parties liable for deficiency in service and negligence. The complainant's request for daily compensation, along with additional compensation for loss of vehicle use, mental anguish, and hardship, is justified and grounded in the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
However, the complainant failed to present any documentation to substantiate the request for compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000 for each day of delay in the repair of the vehicle, starting from one month after it was handed over for repairs until the completion of the work.
We determine that issue numbers (I) to (III) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Parties shall pay ₹50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation. This amount is awarded for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, as well as for the mental agony and physical hardships endured by the complainant.
- The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant ₹20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for the above directions, which shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of a copy of this order. Should there be a failure to comply within the specified period, the amounts outlined in Point no I shall accrue interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (01-07-2017) until fully realized.
Pronounced in the Open Commission dated on this the 26th day of March 2024
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
uk/
Appendix
Complainant’s evidence
Exhibit A-1: Copy of the registration certificate
Exhibit A-2: Copy of the G D entry
Exhibit A-3: A copy of the tax invoice
Exhibit A-4: Copy of the insurance policy.
Exhibit A-5: Copy of the letter dated 31-10-2017 issued by the National Insurance Company.
Exhibit A-6: Copy of the reply issued by the second O.P
Exhibit A-7: Copy of the letter issued by the National Insurance Company.
Exhibit A-6: Copy of the reply issued by the second O.P
Exhibit A-8: The Retail Invoice issued by the opposite party dated 09.01.2017.
The first opposite party has submitted one document.
- The Resolution was Passed by The Board of Directors of Isuzu Motor India Private Limited On 15 May 2015.
The second opposite party has submitted a proof affidavit and 10 documents.
1: A true copy of an email from the insurance company dated
January 5, 2017, which includes the forwarded claim form.
2: A true copy of an email dated January 9, 2017, forwarding the initial repair estimate.
3: A true copy of a follow-up email dated February 22, 2017.
4: A true copy of another email dated March 1, 2017.
5: A true copy of an email dated March 16, 2017, which forwards a revised supplementary estimation.
6: A true copy of an email, also dated March 16, 2017, sending an Excel file with estimation details.
7: A true copy of an email dated March 21, 2017.
8: A True Copy of the ledger covering the period from April 1, 2017, to January 17, 2023.
9: A True Copy of a letter dated February 18, 2021, issued by the complainant.
10: A true copy of the workshop order/job card dated January 9, 2017.
Depositions
PW1 : Richu Paul
