Hyderabad: TVS Mobility asked to pay Rs 15,000 to Hyderabad lawyer for subpar service

Hyderabad: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad has directed TVS Mobility Pvt Limited to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 and litigation cost of Rs 5000 to a Hyderabad resident for subpar service.

Case details

Ashfaq Ahmed, a legal practitioner, owns a Honda City car. TVS Mobility Pvt Limited is a service provider for Honda cars. The service provider, through their representative, approached Ashfaq Ahmed to render periodical service for the car. On March 20, 2023, the driver/representative of TVS Mobility Pvt Limited picked up the car of Ashfaq Ahmed from his residence for periodical general service and other repairing jobs.

Complainant did not receive communication from service provider

When Ashfaq Ahmed did not receive communication from TVS Mobility Pvt Limited, he visited their office and made numerous calls to its representatives. After many days of persuasion, the service executive of TVS Mobility Pvt Limited informed him that the spare parts were unavailable. Ashfaq Ahmed even visited the workshop to enquire about the status of repairs /job work and delivery of the car.

Usually, the service of the car will take a few hours, and denting and painting will take two to three days to complete. TVS Mobility Pvt Limited cannot delay the delivery of the car for any reason. Ashfaq Ahmed had to hire a cab to fulfill his professional commitments. Despite following up with TVS Mobility for delivery of the car, it failed to deliver the vehicle. Ashfaq Ahmed later served a legal notice to them on April 4, 2023.

Though TVS Mobility Pvt Limited received the legal notice, they have neither replied nor delivered the carDue to the non-delivery of the car, Ashfaq Ahmed was made to suffer by TVS Mobility Pvt Limited which caused him physical and mental agony. Hence, left with no other alternative remedy, Ashfaq Ahmed filed the complaint and prayed for relief.

TVS Mobility Pvt Limited denies allegations

TVS Mobility Pvt Limited denied the claim. It said the complaint does not fall within the ambit of ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and sought its dismissal. It said that the vehicle had been brought/towed to the body repair workshop of TVS Mobility for accidental repairs. After the approval of Ashfaq Ahmed (as per the approval of the insurance company), the body repairs work was completed and the body shop bill was generated on March 11, 2023.

On March 12, 2023, the body shop team handed over the car to the service team and Ashfaq Ahmed was informed about the non-availability of the requisite parts as the vehicle is an old model. The company said when Ashfaq Ahmed visited the shop on March 14, 2023, to approve the service repairs, he was informed that the delivery of the ordered parts would take 13 to 15 business working days as the parts have to be sent from the main office at Noida, New Delhi. However, Ashfaq Ahmed chose to keep the vehicle at the service center.

Complainant did not pay any amount for vehicle service

After carrying out necessary repairs (after receiving the requisite parts), an intimation was sent to Ashfaq Ahmed on April 4, 2023, for taking delivery of the car. The TVS Mobility Pvt Limited has been in constant touch with Ashfaq Ahmed and has taken his prior approval for the repairs on the subject vehicle. It is submitted that Ashfaq Ahmed has not paid any consideration to TVS Mobility Pvt Limited for any of the services provided to the subject for the vehicle. The TVS Mobility Pvt Limited has suggested an estimated bill of Rs 30,000 for the repairs and the same has been intimated to Ashfaq Ahmed.

Though the car was made ready on April 4, 2023, Ashfaq Ahmed did not come forward to make the payment and take delivery. Instead, he issued legal notice. It is further submitted that primacy has to be given to the contractual clauses agreed by the parties and the consumerist is bound by the terms and conditions. Hence, denying the allegations of deficiency of service on their part, TVS Mobility Pvt Limited prayed to the Commission to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

After hearing the arguments from both parties, the court noted that TVS Mobility Pvt Limited did not adhere to the assurance given by them at the time of picking up the vehicle and the same amounted to a deficiency of service. The court directed TVS Mobility Pvt Limited to deliver the vehicle to the residence of Ashfaq Ahmed.

The Commission directed Ashfaq Ahmed to pay Rs 24,159 at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle. It also directed TVS Mobility Pvt Limited to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs to Ashfaq Ahmed for causing mental agony and deficiency of service.