IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA 

Saturday,   the 30th     day of December, 2017

Filed on 10.03.2017.

Present

    

1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member) 

in

CC/No.73/2017

 Between

Complainant: Opposite parties:

 

Sri. Haridas           1. Manager

S/o Ramankutty Peninsular Honda

Puthenparambu Patel Cars Pvt.Ltd

Kalathu, Avalukkunnu.P.O Near Matha School

Alappuzha Thumpolly Jn. North.P.O

Alappuzha             

                                                                                                

 

 

O R D E R

SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)

 

The complainant had approached the opposite party for repairing of the vehicle Honda Accord having Reg.No. MP 09  CB  414  and entrusted the vehicle on 20/12/2016 to the opposite party’s  service centre for servicing.  As per the work requested to be done the opposite party gave the bill for Rs. 38,536/- and the complainant paid that amount to the opposite party.  Apart from that opposite gave estimation of Rs.13000/- for the doing some additional repairing work.  But opposite party demanded Rs. 1,39,804/- towards repairing charge and complainant informed the opposite party that he cannot wear the said amount for repairing the vehicle.  There after complainant noted some defects in the vehicle. Even though he paid Rs. 38,536/- towards repairing charge to the opposite party he was not able to start the vehicle.  Complainant demanded several times to the opposite party for repairing the said defects but opposite party did not turn up.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.

2.Version of the opposite party is as follows:-

Complainant asked to this Opposite party to check the RPM Variation, Power Window & Remote Key which were not working and do the under body coating of the vehicle.  Complainant further demanded for the estimation of the work.  As per the work requested to be done, this opposite party gave the estimation of Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant.  Accordingly the complainant entrusted the vehicle for service with this opposite party. However, while doing the service, after the detailed inspection of the vehicle this opposite party found more complaints in the vehicle.  The opposite party informed the complainant about all the defects of the vehicle founded by the opposite party in the inspection.  The complainant asked the opposite party for estimation for curing these defects noted and the opposite party provided a detailed estimation of Work which amount to Rs. 1,39,804/-. The said estimation was sent to the complainant through the e mail.  When the complainant reported to the opposite party that the complainant was no able to start the vehicle.  This opposite party they arranged a home visit by their service advisor and job controller.  On inspection of the vehicle it was found that the battery of the vehicle was down and it was due to the same reason the vehicle could not be started.  The machine of the opposite party started the vehicle with the help of a jumper at the premises of the complainant.  The mechanic of the opposite party informed the complainant that the vehicle had a battery complaint and its needs to be changed at the earliest.  On informing, the complainant said he will replace the battery from outside.  Complainant had entrusted the opposite party Honda Accord car having  Reg.No.MP 09 CB 414 registered in Madhyapradesh for repair.  As the vehicle was of 2007 model some spare parts were not available with the opposite party for doing the repair work specified by the complainant and  the opposite party placed the order for these spare parts with the manufacturer.  As the complainant was not ready to wait until the opposite party received the parts from the manufacturer the opposite party completed the work for which the spare parts were available and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant.  The complainant paid Rs. 38,536/- for the above work done against this opposite party’s invoice.  It is true that complainant had given Rs. 5000/- on the advance for the purchase of spare parts ordered with the manufacturer.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. Complainant filed proof affidavit alone with 4 documents.  The documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A4. The Expert commission report is marked as Ext.C1. No oral or documentary evidence adduced from the part of the opposite party

 

4. Points for consideration are:

1)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the         opposite party?

2)  If so the reliefs and costs?

5. It is an admitted fact that complainant entrusted the vehicle Honda Accord with the opposite party for repairing the defects.  It is also an admitted fact that opposite party received Rs. 38,536/- for doing some repairing works.  According to the complainant opposite party demanded to change some spare parts and gave the estimation of Rs. 13,000/- and accordingly he paid Rs. 5000/- as advance.    Thereafter opposite party demanded Rs.1,39,804/- for changing the spare parts and also for servicing charge.  According to the complainant he was not willing to change the spare parts for the said amount.  The allegation of the complainant is that even though the opposite party repaired the vehicle still it has several problems.  In order to prove that an Expert commissioner was appointed at the instance of the complainant.  The Expert commission report produced and marked as Ext.C1.  In Ext.C1 report the expert reported that “ The vehicle is in running condition at present  but he stated that the vehicle is in unusable condition  at present because of 

(a) Air conditioner cooling system of the vehicle is not functioning due to defective compressor and is giving an abnormal sound.  Further understand that the compressor assembly has been previously replaced, source of which is not known.

(b) Also source of charge leakage charge from the battery suspected has to be further checked if necessary after repairing the door lock actuator and corner sensors.

(c) Radiator fan is not functioning due to the defective fan motor.”

On verifying  the bill produced by the complainant, Ext.A2.  it is seen that the opposite party has not done any work regarding the defects mentioned in the commission report.  More over the expert commissioner clearly stated in the commission report that  all the repairs as per the invoice number SER-INV-DD272-1617-3167 dated 23/12/2016 for an amount of Rs. 38536/- with vehicle odometer reading of 97038km are found carried out by  the opposite party.  Hence we are of opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  But opposite party admitted in the version that he received an amount of Rs.5000/- as advance for purchasing the spare parts.  Opposite party is directed  to refund the said amount of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant. 

In the result the complaint  partly allowed.  Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) with 8% interest from the date of complaint till realization.  No further amount as to compensation and cost.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.

Dictated  to  the   Confidential   Assistant   transcribed   by   him   corrected  by  me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th t   day of December, 2017.

Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :

  Sd/-Sri. Antony  Xavier (Member)      :

  Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)            :

 

 

Appendix:- 

Ext.A1 - Copy of Registration Certificate

Ext.A2 series - Copy of  Tax Invoice dtd.23/03/2017, 

Ext.A3 series - Cash Receipt dtd. 23/12/2016 

Ext.A4 - Copy of E-mail. 16/1/2017 

Ext.C1 - Commission report.

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

 

// True Copy //                                By Order                                                                                                   

 

Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

 

Typed by:- br/-  

Compared by:-