S.RAJAMMAL Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHENDRA & MAHENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 read with Sec.2(1)(g) and 2(1)(r) The details of complaint in brief as follows : The complainant has purchased Scorpio Turbo 2.6 from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.7,00,000/- on 13.4.2005 and in Registration No.76-A-5517 bearing classic No. MAITA2 BFC 52 C 65997 and Engine No.BF 54B 1249 and the vehicle met with an accident on 22.6.2006. The complainant gave it for repair to the 2nd opposite party to set right chassis which was damaged, on 25.10.06 who is the authorized dealer for the 1st opposite party and the repair was made for Rs.1,10,000/-. The complainant disposed of the vehicle to one Mr.J.Srinivasan residing at Bodinaikanur and when the vehicle was taken to 3rd opposite party on 4.12.2007 for transfer of ownership, the 3rd opposite party refused to transfer the ownership on the ground that the chassis of the vehicle was completely replaced and the original chassis number was embedded on it without permission from 3rd opposite party. Hence the purchaser of the vehicle has no option except to cancel the sale and the complainant is not allowed to use the vehicle and constrained to put out of use and in idle. The complainant hard earned money invested in the vehicle is without any return. The 2nd opposite party failed to obtain permission from 3rd opposite party before embossing chassis number, who is well aware of the rules and regulations governing the repair of the chassis and procedure to be followed in this regard. The 2nd opposite party neglected and failed to follow the procedures in this regard and thereby caused to the complainant irreparable loss mental agony, hardship and suffering. Third opposite party though received Rs.100/- for the inspection of the vehicle on 4.12.2007 refused to attribute any reason for rejecting the transfer of ownership application and for which the complainant taken steps to get the details under RTI Act and thereby the 3rd opposite party was impleaded as a party for the same. Hence the complainant has come forward with this complaint for the reliefs of directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for the loss of revenue since 2006 to pay a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings as the complainant is solely depending upon the vehicle for livelihood and Rs.25,000/- towards legal and incidental expenses aggregating in all Rs.22,25,000/-.

(2.) All the 3rd opposite parties have filed their written version separately in which denied the allegations of the complaint. The 1st opposite party is not a necessary party to the proceedings and there is no allegation against them on this ground.

(3.) The 2nd opposite party stated that the complainants vehicle was repaired as per the request of the complainant for which she has paid entire bill and got delivery of the vehicle after fully satisfied. The complainant ought to have got the prior permission for machine from the concerned authority for replacement of chassis or at least within the stipulated time after replacement it should have been obtained by producing the vehicle. He failed to discharge a legal obligation and the complainant is not a consumer as the vehicle has been used for commercial purpose. No details of revenue loss were given and the claim of huge compensation is unsustainable.