w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



N. Dorai Kannan v/s The General Manager Kun Hyundai (Kun Auto Co.Pvt. Ltd.) Service & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- E R AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300HR2002PTC035002

Company & Directors' Information:- K Y AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300JK2013PTC003849

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. B. AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300DL2010PTC198144

Company & Directors' Information:- T & R AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50200TG2012PTC082553

Company & Directors' Information:- D R D B AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032028

Company & Directors' Information:- A-1 AUTO PVT. LTD [Active] CIN = U51502MH2006PTC165934

Company & Directors' Information:- AUTO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65991TN1984PTC010923

Company & Directors' Information:- K.U.N. AUTO COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1997PTC039547

Company & Directors' Information:- Z-AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50500UP2021FTC153664

Company & Directors' Information:- K V AUTO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28932PB1994PLC014522

Company & Directors' Information:- K G N AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2015PTC157675

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34102UP1986PTC008173

Company & Directors' Information:- P S AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300MH1999PTC120052

Company & Directors' Information:- P M C AUTO LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300DL1995PLC071849

Company & Directors' Information:- B C C AUTO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC051439

Company & Directors' Information:- H H AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U34100DL2009PTC192880

Company & Directors' Information:- M M AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50300UP1988PTC009527

Company & Directors' Information:- G B AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50400MH1998PTC114977

Company & Directors' Information:- M C AUTO PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U34300DL1977PTC008716

Company & Directors' Information:- E N B AUTO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300PB1988PTC008040

Company & Directors' Information:- K D R AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300DL2005PTC132732

Company & Directors' Information:- K S R AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300PN2011PTC140367

Company & Directors' Information:- J P AUTO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U50402WB1991PTC052147

Company & Directors' Information:- E G AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC027016

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND H AUTO INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013349

Company & Directors' Information:- D D AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC022306

Company & Directors' Information:- C R AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300PB1997PTC020137

Company & Directors' Information:- B S K AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29246PB1997PTC020704

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND K AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29199TZ1996PTC007431

Company & Directors' Information:- J K M AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300DL2005PTC143914

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND K AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U34300DL1988PTC032426

Company & Directors' Information:- H B AUTO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50401OR1988PTC002075

Company & Directors' Information:- S B G AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50101MH2006PTC158566

Company & Directors' Information:- O P AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51103DL2008PTC181391

Company & Directors' Information:- D K S AUTO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U34300DL2001PTC111465

Company & Directors' Information:- C L K AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300DL2003PTC118551

Company & Directors' Information:- K B H AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2000PTC107258

Company & Directors' Information:- AUTO SERVICE LTD. [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1922PTC001007

Company & Directors' Information:- AUTO INDIA LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1948PLC006176

Company & Directors' Information:- R K AUTO INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC901836

Company & Directors' Information:- HYUNDAI CORPORATION [Active] CIN = F06263

    C.C.No. 22 of 2015

    Decided On, 14 June 2018

    At, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. K. BASKARAN
    By, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S.M. MURUGESSHAN
    By, MEMBER

    For the Complainant: M/s. S. Yuvaraj Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: M/s. S.V. Udhayakumar .Advocate.



Judgment Text

K. Baskaran Presiding Judicial Member

This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying this Commission to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to repair the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No.TN 01 – Y -4347 and deliver the same to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 2500000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered due to negligence and deficiency in service allegedly committed by the opposite parties.

1. The complaint allegations in brief is as follows; -

That the complainant had purchased an Elantra Car bearing registration No TN-01-Y-4347 from the 1st opposite party who is an authorised dealer for the said car and also maintenance and service centre for the said car; that the complainant had sent his car for carrying out some repairs on 03.11.2003; and that the 1st opposite party had raised a bill to the tune of Rs.114262/- towards the cost of spare parts and labour charges vide invoice and receipt dated 21.11.2013; that even after service the complainant found steering box oil was leaking and hence the complainant had sent his car again to the opposite parties service station on the next day and the complainant was told that the vehicle had to be subjected to various repairs to remove the problem and many spare parts had to be changed to make the car fit and road worthy; that the 1st opposite party had not taken any steps to repair the car and hand over the possession of the car of the complainant till the date of filing of the complaint and the car has been lying in the carriage of the first opposite party; that the complainant had issued lawyers notice on 10.02.2004 and 20.08.2014 but the opposite parties had neither replied to the said notice nor delivered the vehicle to the complainant and hence it amounted to deficiency in service and as a result of which the complainant had to spend a lot of money in travels and also had suffered mental agony and hence the opposite parties should be directed to repair the defects and deliver the vehicle to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.2500000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant in addition to the costs.

2. The defence of the opposite parties is as follows;- That it is true that the complainant had purchased the said car from one of the outlets of the opposite parties but the car was sold as second hand car after explaining the condition of the car to the complainant; that it is true that the complainant had entrusted the said vehicle on 21.11.2013 for carrying out certain repairs and the estimated cost of the repair was arrived at Rs.114642/- and the repairs were carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant; that it is false to state that after such repairs there was steering box oil leaking in the car and the road worthiness of the vehicle had to be determined only after satisfying with the repairs that were carried out; that in spite of the vehicle being fit to be driven the complainant had been delaying to take delivery of the said vehicle and hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The points for consideration are

(1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

(2) What relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. Point No.1:- On the side of the complainant he filed his proof affidavit and marked Exhibits A1 to A6 and on the side of the opposite parties one R. Natarajan Service Manager in the 1st opposite party office has filed his proof affidavit and Ex B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5. The grievance of the complainant is that his Elentara car was serviced and repaired by the 1st opposite party at the cost of Rs.114262/- on 21.11.2013 and after taking delivery on the 2nd day the complainant noticed some leakage in the steering box and hence he sent the car back to the 1st opposite party service station on the next day to carry out the repairs but till the date of complaint the defects were not rectified and the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant. A combined reading of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exhibits A2 and A4 would show that the complainant had sent his car for carrying out repairs on 03.11.2013 to the workshop of the opposite parties and they had raised an invoice for Rs.114262/- towards cost for carrying out repairs which was paid by the complainant vide Exhibits A2 and A4 and the vehicle was taken delivery by the complainant on the same day i.e. on 21.11.2013 and to his utter dismay he noticed some oil leakage in the steering box and hence sent the car back to the opposite party to remove the defects. But the opposite parties had informed the complainant that some repairs had been carried out and some more parts had to be changed. But till the date of complaint the opposite parties had not carried out the repairs and delivered the car to the complainant.

6. Though the opposite parties would plead in their written version as if the repair works had been carried out by them and the car was ready for delivery the complainant did not come forward to take delivery of the same. But the written version is silent as to when the vehicle was received for the second time for carrying out repairs after 21.11.2013. Further it is not stated in the written version as to on which date they had carried out the repair works and made ready the vehicle for delivery to the complainant. Hence we are of the considered view that the allegations made out in the written version are bald and vague. If at all the opposite parties had carried out the repairs and the vehicle was kept ready for delivery to the complainant and the complainant was wantonly evading to take delivery of the same then the opposite parties should have given notice or intimation to the complainant in writing to come and take delivery of the car after paying the repair charges but that was not done and further the reason for the same has not been pleaded and proved by the opposite parties.

7. Hence the facts remain that the complainants car has been lying in the garage of the 1st opposite party since November 2013 without carrying out the repairs on the defects complained by the complainant. During enquiry on the application filed by the complainant an advocate Commissioner was appointed in M.P.No.558/2017 for the purpose of inspecting the vehicle and with the assistance of an expert to inspect the vehicle and to note down the conditions of the vehicle with reference to the complaint allegations and to file a report. Accordingly the advocate commissioner had filed a report along with an experts opinion and as per the experts opinion the following defects were observed by the expert (a) engine was overheating (b) air conditioner was working however the cooling was low (c) Hard clutching and (d) Break was not effective. No trace of oil leakage was found. The commissioner had noticed 9 points. The parties had not filed any objection to the commissioners report. As per the Commissioners report the car under dispute is having above-stated defects which have to be removed or rectified by the opposite parties.

8. Even though the complainant had paid Rs.114262/- vide invoice under Ex A2 dated 21.11.2013 towards cost for carrying out repairs to his car he found some defects on the next day i.e. on 22.11.2013 and sent back his car to the opposite party for removing the defects but till date the opposite parties had not rectified the defects and delivered the car to the complainant. Instead the opposite parties had taken a defence as if the complainant had purchased a second hand car and he was explained of the conditions of the car and having accepted the conditions of the car now the complainant cannot be heard complaining that the car needed frequent repair. A perusal of Ex A1 registration certificate in respect of the car would show that the year of manufacturing of the car is January 2005 and the car was registered in the name of the complainant as if first owner on 04.02.2015 at the office of the Registering Authority Chennai (Central) Ayanavaram. Hence the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant had purchased second hand car on being satisfied with the condition of the car as explained by the opposite parties is not true. Hence we are of the view that the opposite parties have not come forward with correct and true particulars. No reason whatsoever has been put forward by the opposite parties as to why they did not carry out the repairs when the car was sent back to them by the complainant on 22.11.2013 or 23.11.2013.

9. From the complaint allegations and from Exhibit A2 invoice it could be seen that number of spare parts were replaced for carrying out repairs in November 2013 and on the next day of taking delivery itself the complainant found some other defects. As a prudent and sincere maintenance and service provider they should have noticed those defects as well while carrying out repairs vide Ex A2 invoice and the failure to do so on the part of the opposite parties would exhibit the negligence giving rise to deficiency in service on their part.

10. In the light of the discussions held above we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and this point is answered accordingly.

11. Point No.2:- The expert in his report under Exhibit C1 has stated 4 defects have been noticed in the car when he inspected the car on 27.02.2018 at the premises of the `1st opposite party. They are (a) engine was overheating (b) air conditioner was working however the cooling was low (c) Hard clutching and (d) Break was not effective. Hence the opposite parties are bound to carry out the repairs pertaining to those defects. As already noticed the complainants car has been lying exposed to sun and rain since 23.11.2013 till today i.e. for nearly 5 years. Hence the opposite parties have to remove the other defects pointed out by the Advocate Commissioner in his report under Ex C1 in addition to the defects noticed by the expert as stated supra. During these five years the complainant might have suffered stress and mental agony in engaging taxies rendering cost for undertaking travels. Hence the complainant might have suffered monetary loss mental agony and in any event claiming compensation of Rs.2500000/- for the same is highly exorbitant and fanciful. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the view that quantifying the compensation payable by the opposite parties to the complainant towards mental agony and hardship and monetary loss suffered by the complainant at Rs.200000/- would be just fair and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. Hence we hold that the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.200000/- in this case in addition the complainant is entitled to get Rs.25000/- towards litigation expenses

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

as he has paid remuneration to the advocate commissioner and the assessing expert. 12. Hence we hold that the complainant is entitled to get a direction to the opposite parties to carry out the repairs as noted down in the commissioners report and to Experts Report and hand over the car in a road worthy condition within specified time in addition to the compensation of Rs.200000/- besides cost of Rs.25000/- and we answer this point accordingly. 13. In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed jointly and severally (a) to carry out the repair works in the complainants vehicle bearing registration No.TN 01 – Y -4347 and deliver the same to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of this order and also (b) to pay a sum of Rs.200000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) as compensation for mental agony and hardship caused due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties and cost of Rs.25000/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of this order failing which the amount of compensation of Rs.200000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till the date of realisation.
O R