AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 31.8.1998 in O.P. No. 97/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli. The appellant is the 1st opposite party. The 1st respondent is the complainant while the 2nd respondent is the 2nd opposite party.
FACTS which are absolutely essential for the disposal of the appeal alone may be narrated. We accordingly do so. The complainant purchased an Ambassador Car bearing registration No. PY 01 H 4354 from the 1st opposite party who is a dealer under the 2nd opposite party manufacturer. A warranty it appears had been given by the opposite parties for the proper functioning of the car purchased by the complainant. During the warranty period, three free services were offered. Even before the first service period, trouble arose in the car as respects gear. The car was entrusted to the 1st opposite party during first service for removing the defect in the car. The 1st opposite party dealer was stated to have collected from the opposite party even during the first service a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for rectifying the defect in the gear, etc. The defects said to have been rectified during first service according to the complainant continued to remain even during the period of the second service. During the period of the second service, the 1st opposite party dealer, it appears, also collected a sum of Rs. 1,500/- for the rectification of the defect and replacement of worn out parts. According to the complainant, the 1st opposite party dealer has no right either to demand or to collect from the complainant during the first three periods of service any amount either for rectifying the defect or for replacing the worn out parts. Further, what he would say is that the act of the 1st opposite party in collecting amounts either for rectification of defects or replacement of parts during warranty period would tantamount to deficiency in service on his part. The 2nd opposite party being a manufacturer is also liable for the deficiency in service on the part of its dealer the 1st opposite party.
The complainant apart from claiming this sort of reliefs had also claimed certain other reliefs from the opposite parties in the complaint. The pleadings relatable to the other reliefs claimed are unnecessary inasmuch as no appeal is pending before us in respect of the rejection of the other reliefs by the Forum below by the complainant and the present appeal had been resorted to by the 1st opposite party aggrieved by the order of the Forum below by the grant of reliefs relatable to charges collected for labour and replacement of parts during the first and second service from the complainant.
THE 1st and 2nd opposite parties in pith and substance would contend that there was no deficiency in service on their part as relatable to the collection of charges during the 1st and the 2nd service period from the complainant either for the replacement of parts or for labour charges during the warranty period. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that during the warranty period, the 1st opposite party dealer must have to render free service and while doing so, the 1st opposite party is not entitled to collect any amount either for the replacement of parts or for labour charges. The Forum below went into the question as respects the quantum of amounts collected from the complainant during the 1st and the second service period. Of course, the complainant would claim that he had totally paid a sum of Rs. 3,500/- during the first two service periods. He had however not placed any tangible material in the shape of documents for the proof of the payment of Rs. 3,500/- to the 1st opposite party during the 1st and the second service periods. The 1st opposite party dealer himself had admitted that he had collected during the first two service periods a sum of Rs. 2,130/- (i.e. Rs. 868 + 585 + 677). In such circumstances, the Forum below directed the 1st opposite party to refund a sum of Rs. 2,130/- collected from the complainant while effecting 1st and 2nd free services in the complainant''s vehicle. The complaint as against the 2nd opposite party is however dismissed directing him to bear its own cost. However, the Forum below directed the 1st opposite party to pay cost quantified in a sum of Rs. 500/- to the complainant. The Forum below issued a further direction that award as passed by it has to be complied with by the 1st opposite party within two months from the date of its order.
AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the 1st opposite party dealer resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice namely learned Counsel S. John Sundaralal Suresh. On service of process, the 1st respondent/complainant engaged a Counsel of his choice namely learned Counsel Mr. V. Balaji. The 2nd respondent/2nd opposite party despite service remained absent. When this matter came up for hearing before us today, neither learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/1st opposite party nor learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/complainant is present. We are however inclined to dispose of the appeal on merits on perusal of the materials placed on record. We as a matter of fact perused the materials placed on record.
ON such perusal, we are of the view that there are no merits in the appeal. To say as has been said by the 1st opposite party dealer that a party like the complainant has to necessarily bear the brunt of charges for the replacement of worn out parts even during the free services cannot at all commend acceptance at our hands. The reasons are rather obvious. It is not as if the car that was purchased from the 1st opposite party dealer is an old junk car. ON the contrary, it is a new car purchased from it. If the parts fitted to a brand new car is worn out within the free service period, it goes without saying that those parts are sub-standard parts fitted in the car purchased. There is no meaning in saying by rendering three free service during the warranty period if charges are collected either for worn out parts or labour charges incurred for rectifying the defects in the vehicle. The demand and collection as made by the 1st opposite party dealer during the 1st and 2nd free services during the warranty period would definitely tantamount to deficiency in service on its part. This sort of a finding had been recorded by the Forum below and such a finding cannot at all be found fault with. The Forum below did not grant by way of an award the amount as claimed by the complainant totalling to Rs. 3,500/- inasmuch as the complainant did not place any tangible material in the shape of documents for the proof of effecting payments to the 1st opposite party. ON the contrary, the Forum below granted an award in respect of labour charges and replacement of worn out parts during the 1st and 2nd service a sum of Rs. 2,130/- as admitted by the 1st opposite party. Such being the case, the award as passed by the Forum below cannot at all be found fault with. This apart, the Forum below after all mulcted the 1st opposite party with a cost of Rs. 500/- which we feel is rather reasonable not calling for interference. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
IN fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We however make it crystal clear that the order of the Forum below as confirmed by us is required to be complied with by the 1st opposite party within a month from the date of receipt of our order or otherwise the complainant would be perfectly at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeal dismissed.