BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 10^thDAY OF DECEMBER 2024

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

1. Complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OPs:

1. To allow the complaint and thereby direct the OPs to pay the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs  only) for the depreciation of the car which was in the custody of the OP No.1 from 22.10.2021 till 19.03.2022;
2. Direct the OPs to pay the sum of Rs.38,604/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Four only) charged by the OP No.1 for the services which resulted in sheer deficiency of service.
3. Direct the OPs to pay the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) towards the damage caused to the car and subsequently, whatever the additional cost purported to be invested so as to get the subject car in proper condition as it was prior to handing over to the OP No.1.
4. Direct the OPs to pay the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two  Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) per month as opportunity cost incurred towards the deprivation of utilization  of the subject car during the relevant period from 22.10.2021 till 19.03.2022.
5. Direct the OPs to pay the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) towards pain, suffering mental agony, trauma etc., for which the Complainant underwent and suffered without there being any reason rhyme or reason.
6. Direct the OPs to pay the cost of litigation and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant stated in his complaint that his wife is sole owner of the Volvo XC 60, car bearing registration no. KA 01 MT7917, which infact utilized by complainant. Since it was due for second service and also necessary to clean in particularly interior and exterior part of the car as well as under the bonnet.

3. The same was entrusted to OP.1 as requested so as to comply with all the requirement instructed by the complainant prior to pick up the said car. Thereafter, the car picked from the residence of complainant at about 10:00 AM on 22/10/2021 and was dropped back on 23/10/2021 at night.The Driver of OP No.1dropped the car only on the imagination that necessary service and maintenance that as per the schedule was carried out. After delivery, neither OP.1 nor driver of OP.1 took the concern in mandatorily intimating the complainant after delivery of the subject car. At this juncture, unexpectedly driver of OP.1 specificallyrequested to drop him at specific place for which the driver of complainant contacted him, since the complainant was at Delhi who had travelled to his business work. Complainant categorically inspected the driver of complainant to use Volkswagen Polo bearing registration No. KA.01.MM.3076. In order to drop the driver of OP.1 and did accordingly

4. Complainant further stated that the said vehicle was returned back on 23/10/2021 at night without providing an opportunity to complainant to scrutinize the entire car and procure remarks since there was absolutely no intimation either prior to delivery or after the delivery to the complainant about the condition of the car and there was no follow-up inspection done from OPs end or invited any complaints with regard to the service from complainant. It is only after the driver of the complainant informed the complainant about the careless and negligent act, conducted the due process of servicing of the car for which complainant instructed his driver to capture pictures of the entire car. After receiving the pictures sent by driver of the complainant, was completely astonished and shocked with the deficiency of service provided by the OP No.1.

5. Since complainant was travelling on business purposes, during the time of the delivery of the car, and also OP.1 has delivered car back on 23/10/2021 at night which was not inspected at that time.Only on 24/10/2021 the car could be inspected thoroughly. Despite, his busy schedule meetings in Delhi on 24/10/2021, instructed his driver to inspect the car and capture pictures.Immediately thereafter, complainant reported on 25/10/2021 around 10:00 AM, at the redemption of the business hours in which his car was returned, which in fact was also damaged severely by OP.1.Pursuant to that OP.1 sent their concerned service personnel on 27/10/2021, once again pick up the car by admitting all the defects. After servicing from 23/10/2021 till 27/10/2021 the car was not at all driven by anyone,either by complainant or his driver, was parked in the parking area.

6. While, the above stated car was in the custody of the OP.1 for the process of the service, there was the huge damage caused to Paint Protection Film (PPF) which undisputedly, was applied within the first week of the purchase of the car.Indeed, it was put to protect the paint surface and other materials which had no issues.The very film was damaged in as much as to say that there are bubbles coming out of the said film.OP.1 has taken the car through its executive for second time with the instruction that towards the service, PPF, washing and cleaning of the entire car i.e, interior as well as exterior washing. Even after the specific instruction the said car was not at all washed inclusive of the exterior of the car, engine bay and also interior except for the mat being removed which is demonstrated in the CCTV footage and the same was acknowledged by the OP.1 as well.The said issue was brought to the notice of OP.1.Contradictory stand taken by OP.1 that the car was cleaned but however the said car become dirty because of rain, on the other hand OP.1 has stated that since the car was delivered in the evening, which is not at all proper and correct. Complainant stated that he has not told OPs team to deliver the car at the specific date and time, it was OP.1 itself who took unilateral and arbitrary decision. There was no urgency to deliver it back without washing and cleaning under the bonnet engine bay and the interiors of the car and exterior part as well.

7. Complainant wanted to raise an escalate this serious issue regarding improper and bad services provided to complainant’s car who in fact messaged concerned parties on several occasions seeking to provide a link so as to raise a complainant but in total contradiction to same,have kept on postponing the same raising  one or the other reasons.

8. Instead OP.1 and OP.2 made false accusation against complainant that driver of the complainant has dropped OP.1 driver on 23/10/2021 by using the same car in question. In fact, complainant has instructed his driver drop him in Volkswagen Polo car. This is a classic case of the deficiency of service, wherein OP.1 charged for 2 items in its invoice, one for pick up and drop from his residence and the other being washing interior and exterior both,complainant paid on the same day.Complainant stated that OPs never provided any service as per the pricelist by the OP.1 for regular / annual services.Complainant expressed his doubtful that the amount paid by complainant for the last service is fair or that he has been deliberately cheated or overcharged by Volvo.

9. OP.1 has charged Rs.885/- towards washing, cleaning, vacuuming and top wash but having totofailed to even examine the car, whether it is cleaned in exterior and interior part.The payment for the invoice was done by the complainant on 23/10/2021 itself which admittedly, was immediatelyupon receiving the invoice.The entire payment was done completely with the trust that quality of the service and maintenance have been done as per standards by OP.1. As per the pictures captured clearly showed the dirt stain visible not only all over the exterior of the subject car but also the engine bare under the bonnet and even the interiors of the car. OP.1 in its statement taken stand that car become a dirty due to the rain is highly unsustainable, since it is only the exterior of the car which will be subjected to dirt to certain extent but not the interiors of the car and the engine bay which are covered and protected from the rain. With regard to the PPF is concerned, was severely damaged, complainant had also requested the PPF vendor to visit the Volvo service centre so as to inspect and demonstrate, if there were any issues with the PPF. If so, same would have been rectified under the warranty provided by the PPF. But there was no cooperation from the OP.1 towards the same.

10. OP.1 admitted the defects and bad service of car but has not come forward to rectify the same, even after apologizing. Their admission and acknowledgment towards the allegation by complainant via Email and WhatsApp messages, OP.1 instead of keep up their promises that all defects would be clear, have repeated their unethical behavior in not providing good service and satisfy the complainant.Admittedly the vehicle in question was in the custody of the OP.1 from 22/10/2021 till 19/03/2022 which is undisputed fact.Complainant stated that there is no dispute that almost more than 150 days has already lapse, OP.1 did not come forward to return the vehicle in good condition. In view of the same, complainant stated that he is totally in dark, unaware of the condition of the vehicle and if any further damages are caused to it.Complainant also expressed that the vehicle though in the authorized service center of OP.1 is unsafe and there is no dispute that in the event of non-usage of car for a long time, may affect the condition of the vehicle, leads to more depreciation due to the act of OP.1, complainant and his family have been facing lot of inconvenience and hardship. Complainant has invested some of Rs.75,00,000/- to own the subject car. Now in the view of the inferior and inefficient and dereliction in exercising services on the part of OP.1.There was no option was left with the complainant to commute to his business during the said period and complainant’s family deprived of utilizing the vehicle as well.

11. Thereafter, complainant caused legal notice dated:16/12/2021 through RPAD as well as by Email to OP.1 to OP.3(OP.2 is a branch office, andOP.3 is car manufacturer), stating that OP.1 committed deficiency on the car in question. The said noticeswere duly served on OPs. After the receipt of the same the assistant manager customer relation of OP.1 surprisingly came forward not replying to the legal notice but straight away addressing an email on 03/01/2022 to the complainant and requested to confirm the delivery of the subject car.Consequently, complainant got suitable reply on 06/01/2022 in explicitly.OP.2 who is a branch office, issued reply dated 17/01/2022 after the receipt of two correspondences. Both OP.1 and OP.2 given untenable, evasive and taken false contentions in their reply. There was no dispute about the delivery of the said car, at the hand of the driver of the complainant at around 7:30 PM but OP.2 had taken strong stand that OP’s personnel was dropped by at Sarjapur by the driver of the complainant in very same car but later in reply OP.2 admitted that he was dropped in the different car belonging to the complainant.

12. On 15/03/2022 complainant got legal notice to counsel for OPs.In pursuant to that OPs got reply on 17/03/2022. Complainant alleges hereby that OP.1 and OP.2 are liable for all troubles caused regarding subject car.He alleges that it was a burden duty of the service provider to take care of the car and return back in good condition but OPs 1 and 2 are negligent in their service. a) Damaged caused to subject car. b) Grievance of the complainant was not treated appropriately in the manner. c) No measures taken to resolve the matter and damages caused on the car. d) Instructions provided by complainant for mutual inspection was not obliged by OP.1 and pressurizing the complainant to take back the car in the poor condition. Even after several emails, WhatsApp messages and legal notices, OP.1 and Op.2 has not taken proper step to satisfy the complainant with regard to the service of his car.Hence complainant approached this commission seeking aforementioned reliefs.

13. Notice sent to OP.1 to OP.3, OP.1 and OP.2 represented through its counsel and filed their statement of objections. Since the notice sent to OP.3 was unserved, complainant has taken steps to issue notice to OP.3 through paper publication. OP.3 represented through its counsel and filed its version along with an application U/o 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC. Subsequently, complainant deleted OP.3 from this case.The said IA is allowed, accordingly OP.3 is deleted from this case.

14. In the version of OP.2,it stated that OP.2 is a sole owner and authorized service center in Bangalore for Volvo cars, renowned all over the world for its impeccablesafety record and quality. OP.1 does not have a separate legal existence, is a part of OP.2 Company(hereafter, in place of OP.1 and OP.2, mentioned as OP only).It has hundreds of positive reviews by satisfied customers stand testimony to the quality and commitment of OP.

15. OP admitted that Volvo car with model No.XC60 purchased by wife of complainant on 21/09/2019 from OP.OP contends that complainant in the present complaint Mr.ArvindPani is not the owner of the car and also no authorization letter produced by complainant to prosecute this complaint on behalf of his wife.The said car registered with registration No.KA 01 MT 7917. The car has run a total of 16,098 KMs. The car has undergone with the first schedule service on 30/09/2020. OP stated that complainant has been very satisfied with the first service and has given positive ratings to the same.There has not been a single complaint by the owner of the car with regard to either the sale experience or during the first scheduled service of the car.

16. When complainant’s car was due for the second scheduled service and the complainant booked an appointment for the same. He also chose for the pickup and drop facility for OP side.Accordingly OP sent its personnel to pick up the car for scheduled service on 22/10/2021. The service was carried out in accordance with the norms set by Volvo car for second scheduled service. OP deputed service engineer who inspected the vehicle and explained complainant over a phone, the work that was due to be carried out and the estimated cost for the same. He also informed about the estimated delivery scheduled to the complainant. After obtaining the consent from the complainant, OP started work as set by the company for the second scheduled service. The service completed on 23/10/2021 i.e, next day, complainant was informed over a phone about the completion of the work and the details of the work carried out.The final bill was sent through WhatsApp to complainant. OP stated that upon satisfaction over job carried out, complainant made payment via Paytmand cleared the service bill.At the same time complainant instructed the OP about his unavailability at home. Since the complainant was in Delhi on business visit, instructed the OP to deliver the car at his home and handover the keys to his driver. OP sent its personnel to hand over the car around 7:30 PM, complainant’s driver taken its delivery. As it was raining heavily, OP personnel requested the driver to drop him back to the nearest bus stop. Driver of complainant taken instruction from the complainant over a phone and dropped him at nearest bus stop in a different car belonging to complainant.

17. OP further stated that on 25/10/2021, complainant raised complaint that he is not satisfied with the cleaning and washing done by OP during the service. Therefore, OP again picked the said car on 27/10/2021 to correct the defects in washing and cleaning. Since complainant was dissatisfied by the cleaning quality both inside and outside.OP contends that on 23/10/2021 on the day of delivery around 7:30 PM, being heavy rain in Bangalore and also that road on which the complainant house is located being a very poor condition, the exterior of the car might have become little dirty. Upon getting the car again on 27/10/2021, OP did a thorough inspection of the vehicle to see if there was any dirt in the engine bay and interiors as complained. OP did not see any dirt, cleaned the engine bay and interiors again.However, OP statedthat it noticed the Paint Protection Film (PPF) on the car had developed some bubbles.

18. It is pertinent to note that PPF was not applied on car by OP. further, OP or Volvo do not recommend application of PPF on Volvo cars. PPF is a thin plastic membrane applied over the cars by third party agent in order to protect the paint from wear and tear including chippings by stones, specifically on highways. It further stated that admittedly complainant had got PPF applied within 1 week of the purchase of the car. car has undergone first scheduled service after that and the complainant has not raised any concerns that PPF has been damaged. Also OPs were not informed that PPF has been applied on car as PPF, as PPF is a thin synthetic membrane, almost invisible to the naked eye.OP also contends that there is a possibility of a stone hitting on PPF, might have caused minute holes on it. If it is poor quality, would develop air bubbles over the course of time.Hence OP denied the allegation damage of PPF while washing with the pressure cleaning by OP.

19. OP also denied that the claims made by the complainant in complaint for the damages caused to the car, depreciation value of the car during the time it was lying in the service center, service charges of Rs.38,604/- as it has carried out service and there is no deficiency. In turn OP alleged that complainant has left his car at service center of OP without paying parking fee for a several months. The car was ready with all cleaning and washing as assured by OP within day or two, even after several request and communications made to complainant for taking delivery of a car, complainant without any issues left the vehicle till 19/03/2022. Complainant kept on sending legal notices without collecting the car in question, made to suffer without car. But it is not the liability on OP for keeping the car ideal in the service center and not liable to pay depreciation value of the vehicle. Hence OP prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

20. At this stage, complainant field affidavit evidence along with certificate U/s 65 (b) of Indian Evidence Act. In support to the affidavit evidence, complainant filed 22 documentary evidence to prove his case, which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22.Complainant reiterated as mentioned in the complaint. In turn one Prashant R, a senior manager, human resource has authorized to lead evidence on behalf of OP.2, along with 2 documents which are marked as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.At this stage complainant filed IA with interrogatories to OP.2. OP.2 replied to the same. Both parties field their written arguments and submitted their oral arguments as well. Perused the materials on record and proceed to pass the order.

21. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

22. Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

                        Point No.1:- Affirmative.

                        Point No.2:- Partly Affirmative.

                        Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

23. Point No.1 and 2: These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

24. Upon going through the pleadings, evidence, interrogatoriesand written arguments filed by both parties, it is proved that with regard to the purchase of the Volvo car with a model No.XC 60 and its registration bearing No.KA 01 MT 7917. On 21/09/2019, from OP by payingRs.59,40,000/-, the tax invoiceis at Ex.P.18 and debit note issued by OP.2 dated 21/09/2019 for Rs.4,49,207/- which is at Ex.P.19. Complainant also produced insurance policy obtained at the time of purchase i.e, on 21/09/2019 which is at Ex.P.20.The said car was purchased in the name of complainant’s wife Mrs. Arundhati Mishra, the document produced in Ex.P.21 issued by RTO.OP in its version has  not disputed in relation to the ownership of vehicle, and its running conditionetc, even the complainant’s grievance is not against any defect in the car or deficiency of the service on the part of OP in its maintenance of good condition. The dispute arised between both parties when the complainant has handed over the car in question for the second scheduled service which is due in the year 2021, when the said vehicle has ran up to 16,098 Kms. Complainant got its first scheduled service on 30/09/2020, was very satisfied with the service of the OP and given good rating. When the OP reminded the complainant over the phone for its second scheduled service is due, he booked for the same with the OP to get it done, since it is due. He also booked for pickup and drop facility,since he is not in the station. Accordingly, OP sent its personnel to pick up the car in question for the service to their service center on 22/10/2021. After its regular service, OP handed over the said vehicle on 23/10/2021 at around 7:30 PM. The time of delivery has raised some dispute with the complainant.His grievance is, when he is not in station, he has not intimated about the delivery after the scheduled service on 23/10/2021, that too at the late hours on which complainant or their family members are not in a position to verify and inspect the vehicle after its service done by OP. Therefore, as instructed by complainant, OP handed over the key to his driver. As it was heavy rain on 23/10/2021, during return of car, OP’s personnel requested complainant’s driver to drop him at the nearest bus stand. In turn complainant’s driver taken instruction from compliant over a phone and dropped him in other car belonging to complainant, which is Volkswagen Polo. The same is admitted by OP in its version that complainant’s driver dropped him in another car, not in car in question.

25. Only on 24/10/2021, complainant’s driver verified the car in the morning and noticed that the vehicle was not cleaned properly either interiors of the car or exterior. OP did not clean the engine bay as well. After noticing the uncleaned car, driver of the complainant informed the same to complainant over a phone.Complainant raised ticket before OP for not proper service has made by their side even after receiving the service charges. Upon receiving the request from OP,Complainant in turn instructed his driver to take pictures of exterior and interior part of the car which is not cleaned in the service, forwarded to OP.On that complaint, OP again picked up on 27/10/2021 for the service as per the satisfaction of the complainant. After thorough inspection of the vehicle on 27/10/2021, OP did not find any dirt in the engine bay and interiors as complained by the complainant. However, OP admitted that the exterior part of the car became dirt, because of the heavy rain when the car delivered back on 23/10/2021. Undisputedly, OP cleaned the entire car again on 27/10/2021 and the same was ready on the next day. After perusal of the photographs produced by complainant somehow the OP has not cleaned thoroughly, is visible that exterior and interior part of the car are still dirt in the picture.

 In the Email, Assistant Manager Customer Relation of OP has accepted and apologized for the dissatisfaction of complainant towards the scheduled service. Since 25/10/2021 till 03/01/2022 complainant and Assistant Manager of OP had communication mutually.In the said Email communications, OP had taken contention about the PPF which is not recommended by Volvo company or OP, but complainant has taken outside service for the PPF.On 28/10/2021 in the Email, OP taken contention that they have received few cars that had PPF on them but have not faced any issue like this due to pressure wash. But in the version of the OP, they admitted that they noticed bubbles on the PPF after the complainant’s complaint. They stated that it may be due to the poor quality of the PPF or may be due to pressure wash. On 29/10/2021 Email, OP admitted that they didn’t find any bubbles on PPF when the car came to service center. Later, after water wash they found bubbles on it. In this case, OP did not take caution while washing the car. In our considered view OP was supposed to take necessary precaution or due diligent in their duty to the satisfaction of customers. When OP admitted that PPF got bubbles on it after the wash, is liable to compensate the same.

After the washing and cleaning on 27/10/2021, continuously OP asked complainant about the delivery of washed car in question, complainant did not respond properly and he expressed his unwillingness to accept the car now without rectifying the defects in PPF.OP Assistant Manager keep on asking about the delivery of the car. Complainant without answering to the OP, dragged the matter till 19/03/2022. In our considered view, the vehicle was in a good condition to run,only on the reason of PPF bubbles, complainant left the vehicle at the service center for more than 5 months, even after OP insisted him take delivery, is unjust and unfair. If in any condition the car was defective to run, is acceptable in leaving the vehicle in service center. But here the car was in a running condition, leaving the vehicle in the service center is unacceptable. On the part of complainant. OP pressurized in each Email to take delivery of the car, complainant has denied to accept it without rectification of the PPF. Hence, in our view, complainant has deprived by the usage of expensive car without any reason, left the vehicle at the service center, is not the fault of OP. Hence, OP is not liable for depreciation value of the car for 5 months. When the car was ready with the cleaning and washing as per the second scheduled service. OP was awaiting to handover the vehicle to the complainant but complainant did not accept it. Moreover, OP alleged that the complainant has left his vehicle for a long period of 5 months without paying parking charges.

When the OP has taken the possession of car for its second scheduled service and charged Rs.38,604/-. Since the complainant has paid the amount for service, though it is free service. OP has caused deficiency of service in washing and cleaning of the car on 22/10/2021. Again OP taken the car into their custody and completed their service as per the satisfaction of the complainant on 27/10/2021.  The complainant sent legal notice to OP twice seeking compensation and the relief as sought in the complaint. OP replied to the legal notice with the same contention. Hence, OP eventhough they completed their service job on 27/10/2021, but not up to the mark of complainant even after charged for it, as according to complainant. Hence OP is liable to refund Rs.38,604/- collected towards service with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. With regard to the PPF, the bubbles may came out of water pressure or may be due to the poor quality, admittedly OP seen the bubbles after the pressure wash. Complainant has not produced the receipt of PPF, to substantiate the amount he spent for PPF. Hence, OP is liable to compensate the same. As claimed by the complainant Rs.5,00,000/- for the depriciation of the car which was in the custody of the OP from 22/10/2021 till 19/03/2022, and the damaged caused to the car is denied by OP, for which he claimed Rs.2,00,000/-. The same is denied by OP. Complainant has not proved the damages on vehicle. Rs.2,50,000/- per month as cost incur towards deprivation of utilization of a subject car, during the period of 5 months, and Rs.75,000/- towards pain, sufferings, mental agony, trauma etc,underwent by complainant and his family is unjustified after perusing the WhatsApp messages, email communication and reply to the legal notice. Hence in our considered view except refund of Rs.38,604/- paid towards service charges and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the sufferings he underwent, for which complainant is entitled. Other claims of complainant are unjustified, hence rejected. On the above reasons we answer point No.1 and 2 in affirmative and partly affirmative respectively.

Point No.3: In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

:ORDER:

1. Complainant filed this complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, is allowed in part.
2. OP is 1 & 2 are jointly & severally liable to refund Rs.38,604/- to the complainant collected towards second scheduled service with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 23/10/2021 till realization.
3. OP’s further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of the service and mental agony of the complainant.
4. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 10^THday of DECEMBER 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;