BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF MAY, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1833/2018

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

S/o late G.K.Muniyapa,

Aged about 63 years,

No.10/1, GKM Complex,

Jalahalli Post,

M/s Trident Auto Enterprises Private Limited,

No.76/1, Allalasandra,

Opp:Jakkur Flying Training Centre,

(Opposite party Rep by Sri.K.Krishna Prasad, Adv)

*****

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI. RAJU K.S, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 seeking for refund of Rs.98,613/- repair charges for the deficiency in service and wrongful claim made by the opposite party and a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards cost and the mental agony sustained and legal expenses met in total a sum of Rs.1,28,613/-.

2. The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of the Duster Car bearing Reg No.KA 04 MN 5759 and he left the car with the opposite party on 14.08.2018 for routine service, and vehicle was delivered on the same day evening to the complainant with “quality certificate” issued by the opposite party.  The opposite party collected Rs.8,767.40 towards labour charges and Rs.3,901.99 towards spare parts charges totally Rs.12,669/- paid by the complainant as per EX.P1.  The opposite party also issued enclosure to EX.P1, in which he mentioned “WORK TO BE CARRIED OUT IMMEDIATELY”, clutch needs to be O/H, FT and RR wiper blade, hard, battery weak. As per advise of the service centre, the complainant left the vehicle for service on 31.08.2018 with opposite party.  The vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 04.09.2018 with new clutch plates and rectified other defects noted in the quality certificate.  For that the complainant had paid Rs.5,451.60 towards labour charges and Rs.22,421/- towards spare parts charges totally Rs.27,873/- to the opposite party on 04.09.2018 as per EX.P3.  After two days of receiving the vehicle the complainant noticed that AC unit of the vehicle was not in working condition, switch nob was struck condition and engine bed was shaking.  Again the complainant left the vehicle with opposite party service centre on 20.09.2018 for repair the above defects.  On 26.09.2018 the opposite party had handed over the vehicle with tax invoice of Rs.25,909/- towards spare part charges and Rs.3,964.80/- towards labour charges totally the complainant had paid Rs.29,874/- as per EX.P6.  When the complainant returned to his home he noticed that some rattling sound in the bonnet and the reverse gear was not engaging.  Once again on 05.10.2018 the complainant handed over the vehicle to opposite party for rectification of above said problems.   The opposite party had rectified the above said problems by collecting a sum of Rs.5,834/- towards cost of the parts and Rs.389.40/- towards labour charges totally Rs.6,223/- as per EX.P9.  

3. On 18.10.2018 the complainant noticed that Disc break of alleged vehicle was not working and hand break cable was damaged.  Immediately the complainant noticed this fact to opposite party service centre and opposite party sent a mechanic by collecting Rs.650/- visiting charges.  The complainant handed over the alleged vehicle to the opposite party service centre on 22.10.2018 through towing vehicle for that he borne Rs.3,220/- for towing charges. Once again the opposite party handed over the vehicle to complainant on 22.10.2018 by repairing the above defects and collected Rs.21,974/- towards repair and spare part charges.

4. The opposite party has collected a total sum of Rs.98,630/- towards repair and spare part charges by creating multiple problems instead of rectifying single mistake and collected exorbitant charges without providing proper and satisfactory services and liable to the complainant deficiency in service to his vehicle. Hence, this complaint for refund of amount of Rs.98,613/- borne towards repair of the vehicle along with compensation for mental agony and litigation charges.  

5. After service of summons, the opposite party appeared through their counsel filed his version and resisted the claim of the complainant, by stating that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious, the complainant has suppressed true facts and with a malafide intention the complainant approached this Commission. 

6. Further the opposite party submits that on 14.08.2018 the complainant has left the said alleged car to check “clutch operation hard and ABS malfunction light glowing in the instrument cluster.  After receiving the vehicle, opposite party serviced the vehicle by changing clutch plate and both front and back wiper blade, and battery needs to be replaced.  Same was intimated to the complainant to do immediately.  But unfortunately the complainant has not given permission to carry out above recommended repairs and rejected the suggestions of the opposite party.  Thereafter, once again on 03.09.2018 complainant approached the opposite party’s service station for repair and replacement of clutch related issues.  The opposite party further had made necessary replacement and repairs as instructed by the complainant.  Once again the complainant approached the opposite party service station on 21.09.2018 towards repair of the AC of the vehicle.  Once again the opposite party conducted the repairs as instructed by the complainant. On 05.10.2018 and 23.10.2018 the complainant approached service station for “Reverse Gear not engaging” and “Rear break not working” problems.  The opposite party attended the above problems and repaired the complainant vehicle to ply conditions on road.  The complainant never heeds the advise made by the opposite party technicians with regard to the service of his vehicle.  The complainant always driven his car in negligent manner and faced problems in the car which was completely user related damages.  Instead of repairing the rear break system complainant used hand breaks and caused damages to the break system of his vehicle.  Further the complainant has been negligently and improperly handled his car against the instructions given in the user manual. Whatever the damages caused to the complainant vehicle had happened from own mistakes of the complainant. 

7. Being the reputed organization having good quality service and known for uncompromised quality in rendering service, and being a part of well-known brand Renault car manufacturing company opposite part’s followed the ARAI standards, in servicing the vehicle.  The opposite party would not liable for user related damage by the complainant himself of his vehicle and sought for dismissal of complaint.

8. To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant (PW1) had filed affidavit in the form of his evidence and got marked EX.P1 to P16 documents.    The opposite party has also examined as RW1 and got marked EX.R1 to R7.  Both parties have filed written arguments and heard the oral arguments.                                  

       9. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service by the opposite parties?

ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of amount Rs.98,613/- as sought in complaint ?

iii) What order ?

10. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In Negative

Point No.2 :  In Negative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

11. POINT NO.1 & 2:- It is the case of the complainant that he was and is the owner of Duster Car bearing Reg No.KA 04 MN 5759 and he left the car with the opposite party on 14.08.2018 for routine service.  The vehicle was delivered on the same day evening to the complainant with “quality certificate”.  The opposite party collected Rs.8,767.40 towards labour charges and Rs.3,901.99 towards spare parts charges totally Rs.12,669/- paid by the complainant as per EX.P1.  The opposite party has also issued enclosure to EX.P1, in which he mentioned “WORK TO BE CARRIED OUT IMMEDIATELY”, clutch needs to be O/H, FT and RR wiper blade, hard, battery weak. As per the advise of the service centre, the complainant left the vehicle for service on 31.08.2018 to opposite party.  The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 01.09.2018 with a new clutch plates and rectified other defects noted in the quality certificate.  The complainant had paid Rs.5,451.60 towards labour charges and Rs.22,421/- towards spare parts charges totally Rs.27,873/- as mentioned in EX.P3.  Thereafter, the complainant contacted the opposite party service centre on 20.09.2018 for AC unit repair as per job slip dt.20.09.2018.  The opposite party repaired the AC unit and tax invoice raised as per EX.P6 for Rs.29,874/- including Rs.3,964/- towards labour charges and Rs.25,909/- towards spare parts charges.  The complainant paid the same.  Once again the complainant approached the opposite party on 05.10.2018 for reverse gear not engaging.  For that the opposite party rectified the problem by collecting Rs.6,223/-.  Further on 18.10.2018 once again the complainant approached the opposite party with break disc problem and hand break cable damage.  For that the opposite party collected Rs.21,974/- and fix the problem.   Over all the opposite party collected Rs.98,613/- to fix different problems of complainant vehicle on different occasions.   The complainant got repaired his vehicle from opposite party continuously on different occasions.  The complainant never expressed un-satisfaction on the service rendered by the opposite party.   Instead of, the complainant repeatedly approached the opposite party for service of the vehicle.  After service of the vehicle, the complainant had run his vehicle till he approached the opposite party for next problem.  This aspect discloses that the complainant satisfied with the service of the opposite party.  With regard to the payment made by the complainant to the opposite party, the major portion was paid towards spare part charges.  Only part of the amount was collected as service charges from opposite party. 

12. It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite party had collected exorbitant service charges towards repair of his vehicle.  From the EX.P1 to P11 produced by the complainant, it is clear that the complainant had himself approached the opposite party for repair of his vehicle on different dates on different complaints occasioned to his vehicle.  The complainant did not take the vehicle to any other authorized service stations to repair his vehicle.  This fact reveals that the opposite party had serviced the complainant vehicle accurately.  It is natural phenomena that vehicles after run for long time they occasioned more repairs.  It is not the case of the complainant that the vehicle had manufacturing defect or defective repair by opposite party.   In this complaint, the complainant vehicle had got repaired for different problems.  Hence, it is clear that the opposite party did not make any deficiency of service.   Hence, we answer point No.1 & 2 in negative. 

13. POINT No.3:- In view of the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 17^th day of May, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)  (RAJU K.S)    (SHIVARAMA, K)    

MEMBER MEMBERPRESIDENT

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri.R.M.Srinivas, the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Original tax invoice dt.14.08.2018.
2. Original quality certificate dt.14.08.2018.
3. Original tax invoice dt.03.09.2018.
4. Two original pre-job slip report dt.31.08.2018 & 20.09.2018.
5. Tax invoice dt.21.09.2018.
6. HDFC bank credit card payment receipt dt.27.09.2018.
7. Pre job slip report dt.05.10.2018.
8. Tax invoice dt.05.10.2018.
9. Breakdown service report form dt.18.10.2018.
10. Tax invoice dt.22.10.2018.

 Witness examined for the opposite party side:         

Sri.Narasimhan G.N, Deputy General Manager Admin in opposite party-company has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

1. B extract of the vehicle bearing No.KA-04-MN-5759.
2. Repair order No.ROBAJP19004850 dt.14.08.2018.
3. Repair order No.ROBAJP19005459 dt.03.09.2018.
4. Repair order No.ROBAJP19006005 dt.21.09.2018.
5. Repair order No.ROBAJP19006456 dt.05.10.2018.
6. TVS Auto Assist (India) Limited dt.18.10.2018.
7. Repair order No.ROBAJP19006972 dt.22.10.2018.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•