Ayyavoo Vs. the Managing Director Tractors Farm Equipments (P) Ltd., Chennai and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1110920
CourtTamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided OnNov-11-2009
Case NumberF.A.NO.127 of 2006 (Against order in O.P.No.24/2004 on the file of the DCDRF, Perambalur)
JudgeHON'BLE THIRU JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT THIRU PON. GUNASEKARAN B.A.,B.L., MEMBER - I
AppellantAyyavoo
RespondentThe Managing Director Tractors Farm Equipments (P) Ltd., Chennai and Another
Excerpt:
m. thanikachalam j. 1. the unsuccessful complainant before the district forum, perambalur, in op.24/2004, is the appellant. 2. the complainant/ appellant purchased a tractor from 2nd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 11.03.2002. the said tractor, met with an accident, and therefore the same was entrusted with 2nd opposite party, for repair at perambalur. at the time of entrusting the tractor, for purchasing spare parts rs.6000/- was paid, but as promised, within two days, the vehicle was not returned, after completing the repairs. on enquiry, the complainant was informed by the 2nd opposite party, that the spare parts for the tractor, was not available, and also not received from the 1st respondent. the tractor was given to the complainant, after a long delay, only on 14.5.2003, thereby causing deficiency in their service, which in turn caused huge monetary loss and untold mental agony to the appellant, which is quantified at rs.60000/-. in view of the above facts, the complainant is constrained to file the case, not only for compensation, but also for a sum of rs.22,800/-, paid by him as repair charges. 3. the opposite parties, in their separate written versions, have denied all the allegations in the complaint, further contending interalia, that there was no deficiency of any kind on the part of the opposite parties, that despite repairs were rectified, within the reasonable time, and informed to the complainant, he alone delayed in taking the vehicle paying the amount and ultimately paying the balance of repair charge viz. rs.16,800/-, took the vehicle on 14.5.2003, for which the opposite parties cannot be held responsible, thereby prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. based upon the above averments, the district forum came to the conclusion that there is no delay of any kind, in repairing the vehicle and handing over the same to the complainant, and if at all, the complainant alone had not taken delivery of the vehicle, paying the balance, that he paid the balance only on 14.5.2003, and took the vehicle on the same day itself, which will not attract any deficiency, warranting compensation. thus concluding the petition came to be dismissed on 30.11.2005, which is under challenge. 5. heard the learned counsel on eitherside, perused the written submission in addition to the documents filed by them and also the order of the district forum. 6. the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was deficiency in service, and the delay caused should be construed, as occurred only by the mistake committed by the opposite parties, are not acceptable to us, by going through the materials, giving our anxious thought, after reading the entire order of the district forum very carefully. therefore, we are constrained to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the opposite parties viz. that the case will not come within the meaning of service, as defined under the act, and this being the position and further fact being the complainant alone had not taken the delivery, though repair have been rectified in time. under the above said circumstances, we have to see, whether entrusting the vehicle for doing repair, will automatically come within the meaning of service, as defined under consumer protection act. 7. the consumer protection act, 1986, aims to redress the grievance of the parties, mainly on the grounds, viz. the consumer, in respect of buying any goods for consideration, where defect had occurred, and where the consumer hires or avails of any service for consideration though there are other grounds also. service is defined under sec.2 (1) (o) that “service means service of any description, which is made available to potential (users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, boarding or lodging or both (housing construction) entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.” if the complainant comes within the meaning of consumer, who availed the above said service, then only he can knock the doors of the consumer forum effectively, and receive the redressal order also, otherwise ‘no. it is not the case of the complainant here, that within the warranty period, defect had occurred, and therefore, they are bound to repair the vehicle. admittedly, the tractor purchased by the complainant, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party, met with an accident, causing heavy damage to the vehicle, resulting in handing over of the same to the 2nd opposite party, who undertakes repair also, as the dealer. though the complainant has said that the 2nd opposite party had agreed to repair the vehicle, within a day or two, we find no materials, except the ipsy dixie of the complainant, not even supported by the documents, relied on by him. it is not the case of the complainant also, that he had paid all the necessary amounts, for removing the repairs, including the amounts if any for purchasing the spare parts also. as seen from the documents, the estimated repair charge was fixed on 25.3.2003 at rs.29,310/-. on 27.3.2003 alone, the complainant has paid a sum of rs.6000/-, that too, for the purchase of front bannet. thus it is seen, he has not hired the service of the 2nd opposite party, paying the entire consideration. no agreement is entered with the 2nd opposite party, to meet out the expenses on his own, then undertaking to receive the same, at the time of delivering the vehicle. therefore, in our considered opinion, after the warranty period, the vehicle which met with an accident was entrusted to the dealer for repair. if it should be construed, that the opposite party is a service provider,and the consumer/ complainant, claimed so, should have hired the service, paying the consideration, which is absent in this case. viewing the case from this angle, the complainant is not coming within the meaning of the consumer and the 2nd opposite party is also not coming within the meaning of service provider, and when these two relationships are not available, invoking the jurisdiction of the consumer forum, is not maintainable. 8. assuming the 2nd opposite party, being dealer, bound to provide service, let us see, whether the 2nd opposite party has committed any deficiency in service. 9. as we have already adverted to above, only a sum of rs.6000/- was paid, though the estimated cost was rs.29,310/-. it is the specific case of the opposite party, that repair was completed, informed, that the complainant alone has not come to the 2nd opposite party, paid the amount, took delivery of the vehicle. there is no material produced by the complainant, indicating that before 14.5.2003 that he approached the 2nd opposite party, and he informed that due to want of spare parts, he was unable to repair the vehicle or something like that. on 7.5.2003, a letter has been addressed to 1st opposite party, complaining restrictive trade practice, so far as spares availability is concerned, which will not improve the case of the complainant, as if the 2nd opposite party failed to do effective service, that too, when he has not given any undertaking to repair the vehicle, within the specified date and handover the same. the district forum, considering all these facts, that too, actual payment made by the complainant, as well the actual delivery given by the 2nd opposite party, that there is no deficiency in service, warranting compensation, which view is acceptable to us, and accepting the same, we conclude the appeal is unmeritorious. 10. in the result, the appeal dismissed with cost of rs.2000/-, confirming the order of the district forum, perambalur, in o.p.no.24/2004 dt.30.11.2005, to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.
Judgment:

M. THANIKACHALAM J.

1. The unsuccessful complainant before the District Forum, Perambalur, in OP.24/2004, is the appellant.

2. The complainant/ appellant purchased a tractor from 2nd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 11.03.2002. The said tractor, met with an accident, and therefore the same was entrusted with 2nd opposite party, for repair at Perambalur. At the time of entrusting the tractor, for purchasing spare parts Rs.6000/- was paid, but as promised, within two days, the vehicle was not returned, after completing the repairs. On enquiry, the complainant was informed by the 2nd opposite party, that the spare parts for the tractor, was not available, and also not received from the 1st respondent. The tractor was given to the complainant, after a long delay, only on 14.5.2003, thereby causing deficiency in their service, which in turn caused huge monetary loss and untold mental agony to the appellant, which is quantified at Rs.60000/-. In view of the above facts, the complainant is constrained to file the case, not only for compensation, but also for a sum of Rs.22,800/-, paid by him as repair charges.

3. The opposite parties, in their separate written versions, have denied all the allegations in the complaint, further contending interalia, that there was no deficiency of any kind on the part of the opposite parties, that despite repairs were rectified, within the reasonable time, and informed to the complainant, he alone delayed in taking the vehicle paying the amount and ultimately paying the balance of repair charge viz. Rs.16,800/-, took the vehicle on 14.5.2003, for which the opposite parties cannot be held responsible, thereby prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. Based upon the above averments, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there is no delay of any kind, in repairing the vehicle and handing over the same to the complainant, and if at all, the complainant alone had not taken delivery of the vehicle, paying the balance, that he paid the balance only on 14.5.2003, and took the vehicle on the same day itself, which will not attract any deficiency, warranting compensation. Thus concluding the petition came to be dismissed on 30.11.2005, which is under challenge.

5. Heard the learned counsel on eitherside, perused the written submission in addition to the documents filed by them and also the order of the District Forum.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was deficiency in service, and the delay caused should be construed, as occurred only by the mistake committed by the opposite parties, are not acceptable to us, by going through the materials, giving our anxious thought, after reading the entire order of the District Forum very carefully. Therefore, we are constrained to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the opposite parties viz. that the case will not come within the meaning of service, as defined under the Act, and this being the position and further fact being the complainant alone had not taken the delivery, though repair have been rectified in time. Under the above said circumstances, we have to see, whether entrusting the vehicle for doing repair, will automatically come within the meaning of service, as defined under Consumer Protection Act.

7. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, aims to redress the grievance of the parties, mainly on the grounds, viz. the consumer, in respect of buying any goods for consideration, where defect had occurred, and where the consumer hires or avails of any service for consideration though there are other grounds also. Service is defined under Sec.2 (1) (o) that “Service means service of any description, which is made available to potential (users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, boarding or lodging or both (housing construction) entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.” If the complainant comes within the meaning of consumer, who availed the above said service, then only he can knock the doors of the consumer forum effectively, and receive the redressal order also, otherwise ‘NO. It is not the case of the complainant here, that within the warranty period, defect had occurred, and therefore, they are bound to repair the vehicle. Admittedly, the tractor purchased by the complainant, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party, met with an accident, causing heavy damage to the vehicle, resulting in handing over of the same to the 2nd opposite party, who undertakes repair also, as the dealer. Though the complainant has said that the 2nd opposite party had agreed to repair the vehicle, within a day or two, we find no materials, except the ipsy Dixie of the complainant, not even supported by the documents, relied on by him. It is not the case of the complainant also, that he had paid all the necessary amounts, for removing the repairs, including the amounts if any for purchasing the spare parts also. As seen from the documents, the estimated repair charge was fixed on 25.3.2003 at Rs.29,310/-. On 27.3.2003 alone, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.6000/-, that too, for the purchase of front bannet. Thus it is seen, he has not hired the service of the 2nd opposite party, paying the entire consideration. No agreement is entered with the 2nd opposite party, to meet out the expenses on his own, then undertaking to receive the same, at the time of delivering the vehicle. Therefore, in our considered opinion, after the warranty period, the vehicle which met with an accident was entrusted to the dealer for repair. If it should be construed, that the opposite party is a service provider,and the consumer/ complainant, claimed so, should have hired the service, paying the consideration, which is absent in this case. Viewing the case from this angle, the complainant is not coming within the meaning of the consumer and the 2nd opposite party is also not coming within the meaning of service provider, and when these two relationships are not available, invoking the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, is not maintainable.

8. Assuming the 2nd opposite party, being dealer, bound to provide service, let us see, whether the 2nd opposite party has committed any deficiency in service.

9. As we have already adverted to above, only a sum of Rs.6000/- was paid, though the estimated cost was Rs.29,310/-. It is the specific case of the opposite party, that repair was completed, informed, that the complainant alone has not come to the 2nd opposite party, paid the amount, took delivery of the vehicle. There is no material produced by the complainant, indicating that before 14.5.2003 that he approached the 2nd opposite party, and he informed that due to want of spare parts, he was unable to repair the vehicle or something like that. On 7.5.2003, a letter has been addressed to 1st opposite party, complaining restrictive trade practice, so far as spares availability is concerned, which will not improve the case of the complainant, as if the 2nd opposite party failed to do effective service, that too, when he has not given any undertaking to repair the vehicle, within the specified date and handover the same. The District Forum, considering all these facts, that too, actual payment made by the complainant, as well the actual delivery given by the 2nd opposite party, that there is no deficiency in service, warranting compensation, which view is acceptable to us, and accepting the same, we conclude the appeal is unmeritorious.

10. In the result, the appeal dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/-, confirming the order of the District Forum, Perambalur, in O.P.No.24/2004 dt.30.11.2005, to be paid by the appellant to the Respondent.