Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/14/527

Sri. Yahathesham - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trident Automobiles (P)Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

03 Feb 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 19.03.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 03.02.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.527/2014

DATED THIS THE 3^rd FEBRUARY OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Yahathesham

S/o Shanawaz,

no.9/1, II floor, Susheela

Road, First cross,

Doddamavalli, Bengaluru-04.

 

By Adv.Sri.M.K.Metri     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

Trident Automobiles (P) ltd.,

At: Sy.no.18/1B,

(Old no.-18/1C),

Nayandahalli Gram,

Kengeri Hobli,

Bengaluru South Taluq, Bengaluru-38.

Rep. by The Manager

 

By Advocates

M/s.Kruthine Law Chambers

 

 

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after referred as Op) seeking issuance of direction to make proper billing of fair charges of only Complainant’s car not the bill of some other customer. Further direct to pay the sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation and interest at 18% p.a towards damages and to pass such other orders deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that he is having Chevrolet Beat car (hereinafter referred as the said car) bearing no.KA53P-0142 manufactured in Jan-2010, since about four years he is the single owner using the said car. He has handed over the said car to the workshop of Op for the purpose of repair. In this context, repair order slip dtd.07.10.13 has been given to the Complainant by Op. Status of repair did not specifically noted by the Complainant, but the Op did not respond properly. In this context, he visited the workshop on 13.11.13 and spoke to the service manager regarding the issue. Then the said manager after speaking to his staff, informed to the Complainant that almost repaired and only final touch-up is remaining and the cost of repair would be between rupees Forty to Fifty thousand and asked the Complainant to make the advance of Rs.25,000/-, so that the car can be delivered within a week of payment of advance money. Then the Complainant paid the said amount of Rs.25,000/- through credit card as per swiped slip bearing invoice no.25522955. Inspite of it, Op did not attend the repair of the said car. Hence, the Complainant has no other go except to approach the Op again. Op has taken time for repair. Finally on 19.12.13, he called-up Op and enquired about the car repair and Op assured that car is ready and repair charges are approximately about Rs.80,000/-. On hearing this Complainant became shock. Thereafter, he started to enquire other repair stations for the concerned expenses, later, on 21.12.13, manager of Op called-up the Complainant and said that car is totally ready and the charges of repair will be around Rs.1,10,000/-. On the same day, the Complainant went with his own mechanic to Op’s workshop and mechanic after examining everything told that in the process of repair negligent and reckless labors of Op’s workshop have caused not only unreasonable delay but also have replaced some good quality parts of the car without consulting the Complainant, those parts could be reutilized after required mechanism. In this context, it is the say of the Complainant that, Op had played a very smart drama to hide their deficient and delayed service and made the Complainant suffer in that way. At the time of giving the car, the repair charges was Rs.25,000/-. After paying advance amount, Op told that, the expenses will be around Rs.45,000/- and after that without approval of the Complainant, they made the amount till Rs.80,000/- being the cost of repairs. Finally it was went up to Rs.1,10,000/-. So the Complainant was made to wait till the re-billing and finally Op gave a bill of about Rs.1,07,624/-, but in the bill owners name is ‘Yashaswini.J.V’. It is also the case of the Complainant that, Op has committed unreasonable delay in returning the vehicle, which has caused the Complainant heavy financial losses in terms of his every days money spent to travel to his office and office house and also he had to visit various government offices and agents and other business people in connection to their business, the same is valued for Rs.1 lakh, another important aspect of case is that the Complainant has suffered a lot of mental pain and agony because of their negligent behavior in service, unlawful trade practices adopted by Op, as well as Complainant’s reputation is also affected when he failed to get the car soon, his colleagues and office people were insulting him as if he has sold the car and just telling lie to others that the has given the car for repair. It is also the case of the Complainant that he is a well reputed business man and an educationist standing as trustee in various educational trusts and bearing various offices in different social welfare organizations. Hence he suffered untold hardship and due to Op’s illegal tactics, he suffered lot of mental torture. The Complainant also issued legal notice on 08.01.14 for which there is no response. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for allowing the complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op did appear before this forum and filed version and denied the contents of the complaint stating that complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable either on law or on facts. Op admits that it has received the said car on 07.10.13 and on primary examination, its executives came to know that there was coolant mix in the engine oil, so our executives asked the Complainant to give approval for engine head over haul, then its service staff asked the Complainant to make the advance payment of Rs.25,000/- to start the work. Further submits that on 12.10.13, Op got the report from machine staff and intimated to the Complainant to give approval for engine head over haul work, immediately on 28.10.13, Op have placed the order for parts, since the engine parts which will be rarely used will not be available at rack,  then after placing the order Op has received the parts on 10.11.13 and the estimation for the day was Rs.56,000/- the same was informed to the Complainant. After receiving the said parts, the mechanic repaired and they also found that there is more wear and tear in crank shaft, which amounts to Rs.30,000/- and approval was obtained from the Complainant on 16.11.13 and had ordered for parts on 18.11.13 and obtained the parts on 23.11.13 and the same was sent to the mechanic shop. Later the mechanic had returned the engine to Op on 03.12.13. After obtaining the said engine, Op started assembling the engine and after assembling the same, the car was taken for the road test. At that time, noise, throttle response was abnormal, and further to diagnosis, body assembly need to be replaced. In this context, Op called the Complainant and explained the said issue and obtained approval from him on 08.12.13. Op ordered and obtained the part on 14.12.13 and it replaced the throttle body and car was road tested, which had intimated to the Complainant on 19.12.13 through their service adviser. The bill made by Op is in accordance with RC particulars. The better particulars of the car repair already furnished to the Complainant, but the Complainant has raised little fingers against Op stating that there is laxity on the part of Op in repairing the said vehicle, hence, there is deficiency of service has not legs to stand. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents Ex-P1 to P9. The AGM-Admn., of Op filed affidavit evidence and produced 1 document. Both filed written arguments. We have gone through the available materials on record.

   5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer as defined u/s.2(1)d of CP Act ?
2. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Op, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
3. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative  

Point no.2: Does not survive for consideration

Point no.3: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have gone through the contents of the complaint, wherein at para 8 & 9 specifically stated that:

(8) The Complainant submits that they have committed unreasonable delay in returning the vehicle, which has caused the Complainant heavy financial losses in terms of his every days money spent to travel to his office and office house and also he had to visit various government offices and agents and other business people in connection to their business, the same is valued for Rs.1 lakh, another important aspect of case is that the Complainant has suffered a lot of mental pain and agony because of their negligent behavior in service, unlawful trade practices adopted by Op, as well as Complainant’s reputation is also affected when he failed to get the car soon, his colleagues and office people were insulting him as if he has sold the car and just telling lie to others that the has given the car for repair.

(9) The Complainant submits that he is a well reputed business man and an educationist standing as trustee in various educational trusts and bearing various offices in different social welfare organizations. The Complainant suffered untold hardship and due to Op’s illegal tactics, the Complainant suffered lot of mental torture.

 

8. Ongoing through the above contents of the complaint at para 8 & 9, one thing is clear that the Complainant has caused heavy financial losses in terms of his every days money spent to travel to his office and office house and also he had to visit various government offices and agents and other business people in connection to their business. Further he is well reputed business man and an educationist standing as trustee in various educational trusts and bearing various offices in different social welfare organizations. Hence he suffered untold hardship. The very admission of the Complainant disclose that, with reference to the business transactions, he made to visit to the Government offices and also the other agents, if strictly construed, the said vehicle being used for commercial purpose. When such being the fact, complaint filed by the Complainant before this form is not maintainable in view of the decision reported in II (2014) CPJ 82 (NC) in the case of Duggirala Prasad Babu v. Skoda Auto India pvt. ltd., wherein it has held that:

Motor Vehicle – purchased in relation to business of petitioner – Commercial purpose – Not a consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections – 2(1)d, 21(b) – Consumer – purchase of car – commercial purpose – Complainant took benefit of depreciation of value of car for purpose of his income tax liability – car was purchased in relation to business of petitioner – Complainant not consumer.

 

Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the negative. Anyhow, an option is left open to the Complainant to approach the Civil court to get redress his remedy.

 

9. Point no.2: In view of our negative findings on point no.1, this issue does not survive for consideration. Accordingly it is answered.  

 

10. Point no.3: In the result, we passed the following

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed as not maintainable, since the Complainant is not a consumer.  

 

 

          2. Anyhow, an option is left open to the Complainant to approach the civil court to get redress his remedy.

 

3. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we directed both the parties to bear their own cost.   

         

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 3^rd February 2018).

 

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Yahathesham, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-P1	RC book smart card
Ex-P2	Original service vehicle acceptance form repair order slip dtd.07.10.13
Ex-P3	Original credit card swiped slip bearing invoice no.25522955
Ex-P4	Original receipt dtd.13.11.13
Ex-P5	Legal notice dtd.08.01.14
Ex-P6	Original Postal receipt
Ex-P7	Original postal acknowledgement
Ex-P8	Original invoices 4 in number
Ex-P9	Call details 3 in numbers

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Narasimhan.G.N, who being the AGM-Admn., of Op was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

Doc.no.1

Free service details

 

 

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT