S GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. TV SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the complainant in OP.6/03 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 31, 2012 directing the 3rd opposite party in the OP, the Oriental Insurance Company to pay to the complainant Rs.1,05,777/ - being the amount spent by the complainant to reapir his damaged vehicle.

(2.) THE case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this. Complainant purchased a Mahindra and Mahindra Bolero GLX vehicle bearing Regtistration No.KL -01 U 4140 on December 05, 2001 from the 1st opposite party, M/s T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Limited, Neeramankara, Kaimanam who is the dealer at Thiruvananthapuram, of 2nd opposite party M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Limited. The vehicle was comprehensively insured with 3rd opposite party, the Oriental Insurance Company. The vehicle was entrusted with the 1st opposite party for service on October 30, 2002 which was delivered to the complainant on November 01, 2002. On 2.11.2002 at 12 Noon when complainant parked the said vehicle in front of Union Bank of India, Statue Branch, Thiruvananthapuram the vehicle caught fire. Complainant informed the matter to the 3rd opposite party and the surveyor of the 3rd opposite party visisted the spot and conducted enquiry. The workman of 1st opposite party came at 2 pm and took the vehicle to the workshop and prepared the estimate for Rs.1,74,890/ -. Though a claim was lodged with 3rd opposite party, no direction was issued to the 1st opposite party to initiate the work. The fire occurred due to the latent defects in the electrical system of the vehicle augmented due to the bad workmanship and deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Therefore the complainant filed a complaint for a direction to the 1st opposite party to carryout the repair work and to direct the 3rd opposite party to sanction the admissible insurance amount. Complainant has also claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ -.

(3.) THE 1st opposite party ie M/s T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram through its Works Manager filed the version contending thus: It is true that the complainant purchased the vehicle from this opposite party and entrusted the same for conducting service on October 30, 2002 which was delivered to the complainant on November 01, 2002. It is denied that the fire was due to the defective workmanship on the part of the 1st opposite party. There was no delay on the part of this opposite party in carrying out the repair work. Therefore the complaint has to be dismissed.