KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 197/2017
ORDER DATED: 20/12/2022
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A :MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Dr. N.J. Annamma, W/o . Kuriachan,
Aruvakkal, Perumbaramba, Iritty. P.O,
Kannur District- 670703.
(By Adv. Sudha . K.S )
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
The Managing Director,
PVS Automotive Company Pvt. Ltd,
KTC Nagar, Meenchanda, Kozhikode.
The Assistant General Manager ( Services)
PVS Automotive Company Pvt.Ltd,
KTC Nagar, Meenchanda, Kozhikode.
Rajesh ( Service Manager )
PVS Automotive Company Pvt.Ltd,
KTC Nagar, Meenchanda, Kozhikode.
The Service Manager,
PVS Automotive Company Pvt. Ltd,
Thankekunnu, Thazhe chovva, Kannur District.
(By Adv. Shyam Padman & S. Reghukumar )
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A : MEMBER
The appellant is the complainant in C.C. 149/2013 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kannur. The respondents are the opposite parties. This case is regarding the repair work of the complainant’s car. The District Forum found that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of respondents and therefore allowed the complaint. The compensation awarded by the District Forum is Rs. 20,000/- and litigation costs is Rs. 3000/- The complainant is not satisfied with this order. Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant filed this appeal.
The gist of the complaint is that:
The complainant is a doctor by profession, who had purchased a Ford Fiesta car bearing Reg. No. K1/58/A2216 from the opposite party No. 4 branch. While so on 03/12/2012 the car broke down at Irittyand opposite party No. 4 service centre brought the car to their centre. The next day the complainant and her husband visited the service centre at Kannur and the service Manger assured that the estimate would be prepared within 2 days after finding out the defects. But against the said promise, they kept the car in an abandoned stage in a nearby compound exposed to weather. Though the complainant and her husband visited the opposite party No. 4 service centre on several occasions the opposite party failed to prepare any estimate or to repair the vehicle. Then on 09-01-2013 the complainant sent a registered letter to opposite party no. 2 and opposite party No. 4, but even after the service of notice, no action was taken by them. Thereafter to the surprise of the complainant, opposite party No. 4 informed the complainant that her vehicle has been taken to Kozhikode for repairs. There also the opposite parties failed to prepare any estimate or to repair the vehicle. Ultimately on 16-02-2013 the complainant received a letter from the service centre at Kozhikode showing the work estimate. There was nothing about the nature of the damage, repairs to be done, the parts to be replaced or repair cost of the parts and split up labour charges etc. in the estimate. They demanded a total sum of Rs. 2,38,886 as shown in the so called ‘ Non comprehensive estimate’. It was only to exploit the customer, without any basis. When the complainant demanded back the vehicle, without conducting any repair works the opposite parties made a demand for Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant as their service charges. Ultimately complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 3943/- to the opposite party to get the car released from their cluthes.
Thereafter the car was entrusted to ‘ ElectroMech’ for repairs and they found that some of the major parts of the vehicle were removed while in the custody of opposite parties. On account of the same the vehicle could be repaired only after spending a huge amount of Rs. 75810/- as repairing charges. Due to the inordinate delay on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered much hardships, mental agony, loss of money etc. She has spent an amount of Rs. 52500/- towards taxi fare. The complainant attributed deficiency of serive and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
All the opposite parties appeared on summons before the Forum and filed their written version. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 contended that the defect was for the injector but the complainant was not ready to replace the same from the opposite party No. 4 service centre. Thereafter as per the compulsion and demand of the complainant, opposite party no.4 service centre was constrained to remove the injectors and hand them over to the complainant for repairing in a local workshop. Thereafter also the vehicle showed the same complaint. Hence, the dissatisfied complainant sent a letter to AGM and as a result, the car was shifted to Kozhikode main workshop. There also the complainant was not ready to spend money for proper repairing. He discarded the estimate given to him, and the vehicle was got repaired from a local workshop without using any genuine spare parts. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged. Opposite party No. 4 in a later stage filed his version containing almost same defence levelled in the version of opposite party No. 1 to 3. According to him there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No. 1 to 4 . Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant adduced her evidence through her power of attorney holder who was examined as PW1 on the side of the complainant Exbt. A1 to A10 documents also marked. Exbt. A1 and A3 are letters sent by the complainant dated 09-01-2013 to opposite party No. 4 and opposite party No. 2. While Exbt. A2 and A4 are the postal acknowledgments of the same. Exbt. A5 dated 11-02-2013 is the work estimate issued from PVS Calicut for Rs. 3100/- Exbt. A8 is a bill issued from Kuttukkaran Kozhikode towards engine dismantling / checking dated 29-01-2013. The bill issued from Electro Mech Calicut dated 27-03-2013 for an amount of Rs. 75810/- marked as Exbt. A9 also. PW1 gave evidence to the tune that, while the car was running on 03-12-2012, it broke down at Iritty Town and was taken to opposite party no. 4 service centre. But against their assurance the opposite party no. 4 absolutely failed even to prepare an estimate about the repairing works to be carried out. Apart from the above, the frequent visits and requests to repair the vehicle also became fruitless. Thereafter when the complainant made a complaint before the opposite party no.2, without the consent or permission of the complainant the opposite parties removed the vehicle to Kozhikode. The vehicle was entrusted to opposite party No. 4 on 04-12-2012 but the first estimate prepared only on 11.02.2013 after more than 2 months. The said delay was without any valid reason. During the said period the vehicle was kept in an abandoned state, exposed to rain and sunlight.
The estimate prepared was not at all comprehensive and nothing stated about the damage caused, nature of repair to be done, the parts to be replaced or repaired, cost of the parts and details of the labour charges. Exbt.A5 estimate was prepared without any basis for extracting money form the complainant. During the said period of two months some part of the vehicle also was missing from the custody of the opposite parties. The complainant has suffered much hardships, mental agony and loss of money. According to PW1 a huge amount has spent for travel purpose also. Thereafter the vehicle got repaired from another workshop named Electro Mech by spending Rs. 75810/-.
While the opposite party adduced evidence through Dw1 according to him they could not repair the vehicle due to the adamant attitude of the complainant and her husband Pw1. They also demanded to repair their old vehicle with local spare parts. But as per the company policy the opposite parties were not amenable for such a demand.The injector repaired from local workshop as per the instigation of the complainant was not useful too. The alleged delay of more than 2 months was happened only due to the said attitude of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
On the basis of the evidence adduced by both sides the District Forum found that the opposite party had committed 2 months delay for preparing an estimate. There is nothing mentioned in the Exbt. A5 estimate about the nature and type of damages or the repair work to be done, there is lack of name of spare parts or labour charges. The Forum stated that Exbt. A5 cannot treated as an estimate at all.
No documentary evidence was adduced from the side of opposite parties. There is no evidence on the side of complainant to substantiate their allegation that opposite parties removed some parts of the car while the car was in their custody .
From the available evidence before the Forum the Forum found that there was inordinate delay on the part of the opposite parties in handling the repair work of the vehicle. As per Exbt. A9 the complainant had repaired the vehicle forRs. 75,810/- but as per Exbt. A5 opposite parties demanded Rs. 2,38,860/-. So the alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service occurred from the side of opposite parties.
The complaint is a medical practitioner and due to the delay on the part of opposite parties suffered much inconvenience , mental agony and financial loss. On the basis of the above findings the District Forum allowed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3000/- as costs to the complainant.
But the complainant is not satisfied with this order. For enhancement of the award she has filed this appeal.
We have carefully examined all the documents and evidences adduced by both sides. The findings of the District Forum on these aspects are very clear. The District Forum found that there was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. The opposite parties caused the delay without any reason. As a doctor the acts of the opposite parties seriously affected her. The charge for repair works demanded by the opposite parties was Rs. 2,38,860/-. But another work shop had done the work for Rs. 75,810/-.
We heard both sides. We find that the compensation awarded by the District Forum for the mental agony and inconvenience of the appellant is just and reasonable and no modification is necessary regarding the compensation ordered by the District Forum. But the appellant had paid Rs. 4,000/- to the opposite party as per Exbt. A6, Rs. 3100/- paid as per A7 and Rs. 843.70 was paid to the opposite parties as per Exbt. A8 documents. We find that the appellant is entitled to get that amount also for the redressal of her grievances. We consider that the costs ordered by the District Forum is necessary to be enhanced to Rs. 5000/-. So the order passed by the District Forum is to be modified to the extent , as stated above.
In the result the appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is modified. The respondent is also directed to pay Rs. 4000+3100+843.70 ie Rs. 7943.70 to the complainant/ appellant along with Rs. 5000/- as costs. On all other aspects the order passed by the District Forum will stand / remain intact.
The respondent has to pay the amount within 30 days after the receipt of the order. Otherwise the above mentioned amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sh/-
