| Address: | SAS Nagar, Punjab |
Chittosho Motors Mohali to pay total price of Maruti Swift VDI car with interest thereon damaged by them during 2nd free service
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No. 282 of 2011
Date of Institution : 04.07.2011
Date of Decision : 13.09.2011
Ranjai Sanadi son of J.S. Sanadi, resident of 2177, Phase-7, Mohali
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Chittosho Motor, Authorised Maruti Dealer, Showroom C-39, Phase-3, Mohali through its Incharge/Proprietor.
2. Chittosho Motor, C-147, Phase-7, Industrial Area through its Incharge/Proprietor.
……..Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
CORAM
Shri B.S. Mehandiratta, President
Dr. S.S. Dhaliwal, Member
Mrs. H.K. Ghuman, Member.
Present : Shri Sanjeev Bhardwaj, cl. for the complainant.
Shri Vikas Sharma, cl. for the Opposite parties.
ORDER
Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) No.1 is authorised Maruti dealer and OP No.2 is its workshop. The complainant says that he purchased new Maruti Swift VDI car from OP No.1 on 04.11.2010 vide invoice Ex.C-1 at a cost of Rs.5,34,970/-. On 08.05.2011 he took the car to OP No.1 for its service. He was told by Mr. Gautam, Works Manager of the Ops that there was minor fault in the car and that he should leave the car there for one more day. The complainant accordingly left the car in his custody. He was called by the said Works Manager on the second day and informed that the bumper of the car had been damaged. On reaching the workshop of the OPs, the complainant found that the car had been damaged badly. He enquired about the reason for damage from the Works Manager but received no satisfactory reply. He came to know that officials of the OPs damaged the car intentionally and willfully. He asked them to replace the car with a new one but received negative response. He then sent reminder Ex.C-2 through registered post on 13.05.2011 to the OPs to which he received reply dated 21.05.2011 Ex.C-3 in which the OPs admitted causing serious damage to the car and also that they were ready to pay the cost of the car as per its condition and market re-sale rate. The car suffered damage while in the custody of the OPs and, therefore, the OPs are liable to give him a new car or to pay its full sale price and not the market re-sale price. On the date on which the car was left with OP No.2, it had covered a very meagre mileage of 3100 Kms only and, therefore, there was no depreciation in its value. He sent another letter dated 24.06.2011 Ex.C-4 regarding his grievance to the OPs but without any solution.
Thus alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has sought direction to them to give him a new Maruti Swift VDI car in lieu of his damaged car and to pay him a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month as taxi charges from 08.05.2011 onwards and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. In their joint written statement, the OPs have not denied damage to the car while in their custody. They have stated that due to presence of spillage in the workshop, the car of the complainant got slipped and was hit by another car present there for repairs due to which front bumper and one fender of the car in question were damaged. These damages to the car are repairable. They have stated that as per standard procedure and practice being adopted in the Automobile Service Centre, as and when any car is being taken for service, an undertaking is given by the owner of the vehicle on the demanded repairs and job instructions capturing sheet to the effect that he authorises the above mentioned jobs to be carried by using the required material and further that the vehicle would be stored, driven and repaired at his risk. In this case also, the complainant had also given the said undertaking on the said sheet. The complainant also took insurance cover of the car which takes care of such risks and losses. In the given facts and circumstances, though they were not under any obligation to compensate the complainant, yet as a goodwill gesture they offered vide their letter dated 21.05.2011 Ex.C-3 to replace the damaged parts of the car with new ones or to pay him cost of his car as per condition and market re-sale rates. They again sent letter dated 29.06.2011 to the complainant stating that damage to his car was only external and in a repairable condition. They were ready to replace the damaged parts of the car with new ones free of costs. Inspite of this offer, the complainant never approached them for taking delivery of the car. The external damage caused to the car did not affect its running or function in any manner whatsoever. The complainant could have used the car after taking its delivery from them and could seek redressal of his grievances, if any, subsequently. He cannot, therefore, make a claim for taxi charges. The complaint has been filed with a motive to extract money from them. They have denied that the car was brand new or in a show room condition or had run only for 3100 KMs on 08.05.2011. According to them once a vehicle leaves the show room of the dealer, it no more remains brand new and its value suffers immediate depreciation. They are still ready to pay cost of the car as per its condition and its market value because the complainant had already used the car for 190 days. As per law, the affected party is to be put in the same condition in which it was at the time of damage. They have denied having received letter Ex.C-4 from the complainant. Denying any deficiency of service on their part, they have sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. Parties have led evidence.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.CW-1/1 and CW-2/1; copies of bill dated 04.11.2010 Ex.C-1; his letter dated 13.05.2011 to the OPs EX.C-2; its receipt Ex.C-2/1; letter of the OPs dated 21.05.2011 Ex.C-3; his letter dated 24.06.2011 to the OPs Ex.C-4; its receipt Ex.C-4/1 and photographs Exs.C-5 to C-5/3.
5. Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Baljinder Singh, their Vice President Ex.RW-1/1; copies of job card dated 08.05.2011 Ex.R-1; demanded repairs and job instructions capturing sheet Ex.R-2 and photographs Exs.R-3/1 to R-3/7.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments submitted by them.
7. Admittedly the car was damaged while in the custody of the OPs for regular service. The OPs have made an offer for replacing free of cost the two damaged parts i.e. bumper and fender or to pay the price of the car as per its condition and market re-sale rate. The car had covered a mileage of 3113 KMs only on 08.05.2011 and had thus borne very meagre wear and tear and was almost new. Due to this reason, on behalf of the complainant it has been vehemently contended that the complainant should be reimbursed full price of the car. The learned counsel for the complainant had also argued that the complainant is not even ready to take the new car in replacement because he would have to pay extra registration fee enhanced subsequently. The OPs are also not willing to provide the complainant with a new car.
8. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the OPs should refund to the complainant the entire cost of the car to the tune of Rs.5,34,970/- as shown in invoice Ex.C-1 dated 04.11.2010. It was a new car purchased just six months ago by the complainant from OP No.1. A vehicle is purchased by a consumer for deriving pleasure and enjoyment not only by its driving but also from its very sense of possession. The depressive and pensive state of mind of a consumer can well be imagined when the vehicle purchased by him with his hard earned income is damaged due to the negligence and carelessness of those whom he has entrusted it for repairs and who were supposed to keep it in safe custody. Nothing short of full reimbursement of the price of the car would, therefore, compensate the complainant. No evidence of incurring any taxi charges w.e.f. 08.05.2011 has been led by the complainant and, therefore, compensation on that account is declined.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the complaint is allowed against OP No.1. OP No.1 is directed to pay to the complainant total price of the car to the tune of Rs.5,34,970/- (Rupees five lacs thirty four thousand nine hundred seventy only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 08.05.2011 till the date of actual payment and costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
September 13, 2011
(B.S.Mehandiratta)
President
(Dr.S.S.Dhaliwal)
Member
(Ms.H.K.Ghuman)
Member
Was this information helpful?
Post your Comment