IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 24^th day of August,  2023

Present:  Sri.Manulal.V.S, President

           Smt.Bindhu.R, Member

          Sri.K.M.Anto, Member

CC No. 40/2023 (Filed on 15/02/2023)

Complainant                               :    Aiby Ann Abraham,

                                                         Mannil House.

                                                Near Carmel Convent,

                                                Elamkunnu,

                                                Madappaly P.O,

                                               Changanacherry  -  686 546.                      

                                                                                                             Vs.

Opposite party                                                                                       :      Abidh Salim,                                                           

                                                                                                                     KL 33 Two Wheeler Workshop,

                                                                                                                    Near St.George Church,  

                                                                                                        Veroor, Industrial Nagar P.O, 

                                                                                                        Changanacherry  -  686   104.

                                                 O R D E R

SRI.K.M. ANTO, MEMBER

The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant approached the opposite party for getting the service of her scooter on 08/02/2023. The service  includes mirror fixing, tightening of breaks, loosening of jammed foot stand, central stand etc. The dash board of the scooter appeared loose and also enquired with the opposite party whether that could be fixed. The opposite party agreed to do the service and informed that they will try to fix the dash board. The scooter was returned after service on 9/02/2023. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.750/- to the opposite party as service charges. The service done was not satisfactory. The opposite party made 4 drills on the body of dash board and fitted screws of which 2 screws were visible. This was done without taking consent from the complainant. When this fault was intimated to the opposite party they declined to resolve the issue. This complaint is filed to get the headlight section replaced due to the drilling done along with dash board part and for getting a compensation of Rs.4,000/- for replacement of parts along with Rs.1,800/- as compensation for poor customer service.

On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. Inspite of receipt of notice, the opposite party failed to file the version or to appear before the Commission to defend their case. The opposite party was set  exparte.

The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 to A3. On the basis of the complaint and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.

1.  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?
2.  If so, what are the reliefs and costs?

On going through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record it is clear that the complainant had approached the opposite party for the repair works of her scooter.

Exts A1 and A2 are the copy of  pictures of the scooter before and after the service.

Ext A3 is the copy of the Google  pay  payment  transaction  receipt  of Rs.750/- to the opposite party.

The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party made the screws on the body of the dash board without her consent and the service done by the opposite party was not satisfactory. The opposite party failed to adduce any evidence to prove these allegations are not true. In the absence of any contrary evidence to disprove the complaint, we are inclined to allow this complaint.  

Even though the complainant sought for Rs.4,000/- as cost for replacing the head light, no evidence is adduced to show that the head light is damaged and needs replacement.

Hence we allow the complaint and pass the following orders.

(1) The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.750/-(Rupees Seven Hundred and Fifty only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of  copy of this order.

(2) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and hardships caused to the complainant with cost Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only).

The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of  copy of this order failing which the amounts will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.

     Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 24^th day of  August, 2023

                  Sri.K.M.Anto,  Member          Sd/-      

                 Sri.Manulal.V.S,  President     Sd/-    

                 Smt.Bindhu.R,  Member         Sd/-

APPENDIX :

Exhibit from the side of the Complainant :

A1  -  Colour photostat of the scooter before the service

A2  -  Colour photostat of the scooter after the service

A3   - Copy of Google pay payment transaction screenshot

          done to the opposite party

Exhibit from the side of Opposite party :

Nil

                                                                                      By Order,

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                               Assistant  Registrar