Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Noushad Ali, President
BALAJI AGENCIES AND INDUSTRIES - Appellant
Versus
CHERUKURPALLI KAILASH - Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 1 and 240 of 2016 in C.C. No. 23 of 2015
Decided on : 19-05-2017
Consumer Protection Act - Vehicle Servicing - 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The court discussed the negligence of the driver, the responsibility of the service center, and the compensation awarded to the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle broke down after servicing, and he alleged negligence on the part of the service center. The District Consumer Forum found the service center guilty of deficiency in service and awarded compensation to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the service center failed to rectify the oil leakage, leading to the breakdown of the vehicle, and upheld the compensation awarded by the Forum but reduced it to Rs. 25,000.
Issues: Negligence of the service center, responsibility for the breakdown, and the quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the service center was guilty of deficiency in service under section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that the compensation awarded should be reasonable and commensurate with the gravity of the inconvenience caused.
Final Decision: FA No. 1/2016 was allowed in part, directing the service center to carry out repairs and service the engine at their own cost and pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 to the complainant. FA No. 240/2016 was dismissed.
ORDER
Noushad Ali, President. - These two appeals arise out of the same order passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Chittoor at Tirupathi dated 1.12.2015 in C.C. No. 23/2015. FA No. 1/2016 is filed by the Opposite Parties against the award passed against them to pay compensation to the complainant, while FA 240/2016 is filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation.
2. Since the Opposite Parties have challenged the very liability fastened against them, FA 1/2016 filed by them is taken up for consideration in the first place. The parties are referred to as the complainant and the Opposite Parties as arrayed in the complaint for the sake of convenience.
3. The complainant is the owner of a light motor vehicle (goods carriage) bearing Registration No, AP03TB0702. He purchased the said vehicle on 7.10.2011 for a price of Rs. 6,01,724, purportedly for transporting daily needs to his Yoga Ashram near Tirupathi, Chittoor district.
4. After plying the vehicle without any problem for about 4 years, in February 2015 the complainant gave the vehicle to Opposite Party No. 1 which is an authorized sales and service centre of Mahindra Company at Nellore for servicing and for certain wear and tear repairs. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant after effecting the repairs and servicing on payment of Rs. 1,11,326. After a gap of about 2 months i.e. 16.4.2015 the vehicle was sent to Opposite Party 2 for general servicing. After servicing, the vehicle was returned to the complainant on 18.4.2015. The complainant paid Rs. 11,998 towards charges (Ex.A3).
5. It appears that after 3 days i.e. 21.4.2015 the vehicle was taken out for normal use and after it had plied a distance of about 50 km (according to the Opposite Parties the vehicle plied for about 100 kms), the vehicle broke down. The mechanics of Opposite Party No. 2 inspected the vehicle and found that the engine got seized. In spite of changing some spare parts and engine oil, the vehicle did not start. Since the vehicle broke down within a couple of days after servicing, the complainant issued notice on 1.5.2015 alleging negligence and called upon the opposite parties to take up necessary repairs at their cost and pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for causing inconvenience and mental agony. Opposite party No. 1 gave reply on 12.5.2015 denying the allegation in the notice. Notice sent to opposite party No. 2 was returned un-served. Hence the complainant approached the Forum by filing the complaint in question. He supported his case by filing his own evidence affidavit and marking Exs. A1 to A8.
6. The Opposite Party No. 2 field written version adopted by Opposite Party No. 1 admitting the repairs and the servicing done to the vehicle and payment of charges. They however denied that the engine broke down because of any fault on their part. They alleged that the engine got seized because of the negligence of the driver. According to them the driver did not notice oil leakage by watching the warning signals of oil level and rise in temperature from the indicator in the instrument panel. They contended that there was leakage while servicing was done on 18.4.2015 and the vehicle was delivered in a perfect condition to the satisfaction of the driver. They contended that if there was leakage in the engine oil, the vehicle would not move even a single kilometer distance. They supported their case by filing the affidavit of their Service Engineer and marking Exs. B1 to B15,
7. Considering the evidence on record that vehicle underwent servicing a few days before the breakdown, including oil service, the Forum did not accept the allegation of negligence against the driver and came to the conclusion that the engine got seized due to negligence of the Opposite Parties only. The Forum accordingly allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Parties as follows:
(i) to carry out necessary repairs and service to the vehicle within a week at their own cost, and return the vehicle on or b
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
