Back
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.07/2016
(Against the order made in C.C.No.18/2012 dated 15.12.2015 on the file of
the District Forum, Madurai.)
THURSDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
M.Ravichandran,
S/o Mr.K.Mani,
Joy Home,
Jesus Nagar,
Sivagangai – 630 561 Appellant/Complainant
-Vs-
M/s.AR.AS.PV.PV. & CO.,
A Unit of M/S.Shenbagam Industries,
No.58, T.P.K.Salai,
Madurai – 625 004. Respondent/Opposite Party
Counsel for Appellant/Complainant : Mr.M.Piravi Perumal, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent/Opposite Party : Mr.A.P.Athithan, Advocate.
This appeal coming before me for final hearing on 09.09.2021 and on hearing
the arguments of both side and on perusing the material records, this Commission
made the following.
ORDER
THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDINGJUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant under section 15
read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the
order of the learned District Forum, Madurai made in C.C.No.18/2012, dated
15.12.2015, partly allowing the complaint.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as
they stood arrayed in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum,
Madurai.
3. The complainant suffering by an order, directing the opposite party to pay a
sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for loss suffered by the complainant on account
of non-repair of the car for 4 years and Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental
agony, pain and suffering and directing the opposite party not collected any
demurrage for detention of the vehicle in its custody and the car shall be delivered
to the complainant at his residence on the expense of the opposite party and also
the directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as cost to the
complainant in the hands of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Madurai (hereinafter in short “District Forum”) have preferred this appeal
before this Commission.
4. The brief case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant is the
owner of Flat Palio car bearing Registration No.TN-58-J-4017. He entrusted the
above car with the opposite party on 05.04.2010 for rectifying the defects in the car.
The opposite party informed the complainant that there is defect in the diesel pump
and it will take 2 to 3 weeks for rectifying the defects. As assured the opposite party
has not rectified defects and handed over the car to the complainant and therefore
by letter dated 01.07.2010 the opposite party was requested to rectify the defect
and hand over the car without delay, but in vain. The complainant then issued a
lawyer notice on 15.07.2010 to the opposite party. The opposite party neither given
any reply nor has repaired and returned the car. The complainant is a pastor and his
nature of work involves extensive travelling and due to non-availability of his car he
was forced to hire cars on rents and had incurred heavy expenses. Apart from that
he was forced to suffer inconvenience due to non-availability of his car which had
resulted in mental agony, pain and anguish. The opposite party had committed gross
deficiency in service coupled with negligence which had resulted in heavy loss and
mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint filed to direct the opposite
party to pay compensation for mental agony, for the loss suffered due to renting of
cars, compensation. Therefore the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for not delivered the vehicle and to pay a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- for the expenses using hired vehicle and
