By: Sri. Mohandasan K., President
1. The complainant is the owner of KL 65 8629, Mahindra Maxximo, light motor vehicle which is using by the complainant for his livelihood. Due to some defects the vehicle was taken to the opposite party for the repair work during 2019 July and the opposite party said to him that it will require Rs.13,000/- for the work and the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- rupees towards the same. The complainant approached the opposite party on 29/10/2019 to receive the repaired vehicle and at that time the opposite party collected 25,818/- rupees towards the spare parts and 19,096/- rupees towards service charge from the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.34,900/- to the opposite party in addition to advance amount of Rs.10,000/- but when the complainant noted that spare parts which are replaced was not seen in the vehicle, then the opposite party said that the worker who attended the repair work is laid up and when he reports again for job the replaced spare parts will be issued to the complainant. Then the complainant requested the opposite party to give the same to the complainant in writing and the opposite party endorsed the same on the back side of cash bill. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party for the replaced spare parts but it was protracted by the opposite party. At last on 27/11/2019 when the complainant contacted the opposite party over telephone he was directed to approach the opposite party directly and then it was told that the spare parts removed from the vehicle of the complainant stands sold out two days before that day. Then the complainant demanded for the cost of the parts but the response was a challenge to take appropriate action. The complainant alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant suffered hardships, inconvenience and financial loss due to the act of the opposite party.
2. The complainant claims for Rs.25,000/- as cost of spare parts disposed by the opposite party and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service from the opposite party and also cost of the proceedings.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and on receipt of notice the opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. The opposite party contended that the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint and the complainant is not the owner of the vehicle or a beneficiary as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. The R C owner of vehicle is one Mr. Nizar and the complainant here in is Mr. Ameer Muhammed. Hence there is no privity of contract with complainant and the opposite party. The vehicle on purchase should be registered in the name of the owner within a reasonable period as per motor vehicles act and no vehicle can be given for hire or reward by the RC owner to any third parties which is forbidden under law. The contention that the complainant purchased the vehicle from Sri. Nazar is not correct and the RC ownership of the vehicle is not transferred to anybody and as per reports the vehicle was brought for repairs by Nizar and not the Ameer Muhammed, the alleged complainant. The delivery of the vehicle was also taken by Nizar and not by complainant.
4. The opposite parties further denied that the complainant purchased KL 65 8629 vehicle from Nizar for earning lively hood for Rs.2,00,000/- is believed to be un true, incorrect and false. The vehicle was brought by RC owner / his men and took delivery by RC owner / his men as per the record maintained at the opposite party. The opposite party further denied that the complainant and family were living from the income of vehicle is also in correct since the vehicle was ready after repairs on 31/07/2019 but took delivery only on 29/10/2019. The opposite party submitted that they provided best service to the complainant and the service done by the opposite party is not the question of redressal so the complainant is filed on an experimental basis and it is a misuse of legal machinery without IOTA of truth or fact. The opposite party denied the averment that the vehicle was taken to the opposite party on July 2019 and that the opposite party stated it would cause Rs.30,000/- for repairs is untrue and false. The vehicle was brought to opposite party on 22/06/2019 with a complaint lowering of coolant in radiator and white smoke while driving. These are normal symptoms engine work and there for an estimate of opening of engine was done and the estimation for the same was Rs.2,500/-.
5. The opposite party opened the engine and found that the engine repairs to be effected and an estimate of Rs.50,000/-was raised and informed to the customer who paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 26/06/2019 all these are in contraindication to the averment in the complaint that the vehicle was garaged for repairs in July 2019 and which would tantamount to say that the complainant have had any knowledge about the vehicle and he is misusing the authority of the Commission. The entire work of the vehicle was finished and informed the customer and promised to take delivery on 31/07/2019 and bill was raised expecting delivery on 31/07/2019. The opposite party further submitted that subsequently nobody took delivery and all efforts to get the customer went in vain and they did not take the delivery for many months thereafter. Later it was informed by the customer that he sold the vehicle to a work shop owner and he will take delivery of vehicle from the opposite party on receipt of the amount from the new buyer due to paucity of funds. Later the vehicle was taken delivery by the customer on 29/10/2019 after laps of around three months and paid the work shop bill after deducting advance paid amount of Rs.10,000/-. The opposite party submitted that there was no request for return of damaged spare parts at any time prior to the delivery but during delivery it was told that the owner wants to get back the damaged parts since he is work shop owner. But on verification it was not found out because it was not kept separately because nobody demands the damaged parties except the insurances company towards salvages. The customer sought to note the same in revers of the bill for showing to the new owner and which was given in writing, now the owner complainant using the endorsement before the honorable Commission. The original customer never had any demand for spare parts, out of the damaged items many of them were gaskets and rubber parts, which are not separable or get damaged. during the removal of parts. The opposite party submitted the vehicle was kept in yard after repairs for almost three months still no demurrage was sought or collected from the complainant. It would have been Rs.250/- per day and which would come to the tune of Rs.22,000, but no single pie was collected. The salvage value of the parts would be Rs.2,000/- if calculated by the insurance company. But it was not demanded by the customer, who give the vehicle, for repairs but it is true that he requested while taking delivery for the new owner and not for the customer. The opposite party submitted that if the customer wants to have such damaged parts, the opposite party can arrange such damaged parts through their any service point, if available but nothing such was demanded by the customer till that day. So the submission of the opposite party is that the complainant was not the real person who took the vehicle to the opposite party, who paid the bill amount of repairs or its advance sum and he had no knowledge even about any of such matters except the date of delivery and thus it is clear that he might have become the owner only after the return of vehicle after repairs. Hence the complaint is baseless absolutely false and no cause of action for the complaint and the reliefs sought are imaginary and illusionary. There is no deficiency of service from the side of opposite party and the complaint is liable to dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
6. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 (series 3 pages) is copy of tax invoice dated 31/07/2019. Ext. A2 is copy of RC. Opposite party did not file any document.
7. Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration-
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
8. Point No.1 &2
The opposite party admitted that the vehicle KL 65 8629 maxi motric taken to the opposite party and repaired by the opposite party. The complainant has no complaint regarding the service of the vehicle. But the grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party did not deliver the spare parts those were replaced by the opposite party. The opposite party admit that changed parts of the vehicle not given to the complainant. The opposite party also admitted that they endorsed the same on Ext. A1 on 29/10/2019. But the submission of the opposite party is that the vehicle was repaired by the opposite party during the month of July 2019 itself but the customer has taken delivery of vehicle only on 29/10/2019 i.e., after lapse of around three months. The opposite party contended that they had informed the customer and promised to take delivery of the vehicle on 31/07/2019. In addition to that the opposite party submitted that the complainant is not the RC owner and he is not the person who entrusted the vehicle with the opposite party and also not the person who take delivery of the vehicle on 29/10/2019. So, the submission of the opposite party is that there is no privity of contract and also there is no deficiency in-service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party further contended that the vehicle was kept in yard after repairs for almost three months still no demurrage was sought or collected. According to opposite party the demurrage charges would have been Rs.250/- per day and which would come to the tune of Rs.22,000/- but no single pie was collected. According to opposite party the salvage value of the parts would be around rupees 2,000/- if calculated by the insurance company but it was not demanded by the customer, who gave the vehicle for repairs but it is true that he requested while taking delivery for the owner and not for the customer.
9. But in this complaint the opposite party has not produced any document to prove their contention, on the other hand the complainant produced Ext.A1 and A2, which prove the case to the extent that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle and he paid service expenses up to 44,900/- rupees. Hence there is no merit in the contention of the opposite party that the complainant is not the owner of the vehicle. As per Ext. A1 itself it can be seen that replaced parts are not given to the complaisant. Ext. A1 further proves that the bill was ready by 31/07/2019 itself. So, the contention of the opposite party that the complainant has taken delivery of the repaired vehicle after elapse of three months is correct. The complainant has not offered any explanation for the delay in taking delivery of the vehicle. So the case of the complainant cannot be accepted in full text except to the extent the non-returning of replaced spare parts. The complainant has not stated the cost of the replaced parts or not produced any document to substantiate the same. On the other hand, the opposite party submitted that as per the insurance standard the value of the salvage would be Rs.2,000/- only. In the absence of proper documents from the side complainant we asses 1/3 cost of the spare parts will be a reasonable amount towards replaced parts. As per Ext. A1 the cost of parts replaced shown as Rs.25,818 and so we fix 1/3 amount of the same as Rs. 8,600/-. It is an admitted case that the opposite party has not returned the replaced spare parts of the vehicle to the complainant and which amounts unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. So the complainant is entitled nominal amount of compensation and we fix it as Rs.5,000/- . We also consider Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
10. Though the opposite party had contended that the vehicle was kept in yard for 3 months after repair works and so entitled for the demurrage charges, no steps has been seen taken by the opposite party to realize the same except contenting the same in the version. So, we are not considering the contention of the opposite party regarding demurrage as serious one.
In the above facts and circumstances, we allow this complaint as follows: -
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.8,600/- to the complainant as value of the salvages to the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of unfair trade practices and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
- The opposite parties directed to pay Rs.3,000/-as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which opposite party is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of order to till date of payment.
Dated this 10th day of January, 2023.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 and A2
Ext.A1: (series) Tax invoice dated 31/07/2019.
Ext.A2: Copy of RC
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
