DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 23rd day of December 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 08/08/2016
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.118/2016)
Fathima Beevi,
D/o Ali,
Perumbath Veedu,
Vallikunnu (PO),
Payyanidam,
Mannarkkad,
Palakkad. - Complainant
(Advts.T.V.Praveen Kumar & P.K.Dileep)
V/s
Afsal,
Proprietor, Maruti Centre,
New General Vehicle Auto Scan,
Oppo.Kalladi High School,
Kumaramputhur,
Mannarkkad, - Opposite parties
Palakkad
(Adv.T.T.Sunil Kumar)
O R D E R
By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member,
Complainant is the owner of motor car KL 45 E-1352 Fiat Linea. Due to the engine troubles the complainant entrusted the said vehicle to the opposite party on 05.05.2016. At the time of entrustment the opposite party assured the complainant that he had the technical know how to repair the above vehicle and that he will repair the vehicle in good working condition. The complainant further submits that at the time of entrustment the opposite party had given an estimate expense of Rs.12,000/-, but later it was enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. 20,000/- and so on. On 28.07.2016 the opposite party called upon the complainant and informed that the car was repaired in full condition and the expense was Rs.70,550/-. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle on the same day by paying an amount of Rs.68,000/-. After repairs the complainant was instructed to drive the car at more than 60 kilo meters per hour up to 2000 kilo meters. But the same problem continued and the vehicle felt difficult to climb on slope areas. More over huge smoke was let out from the vehicle. When the complainant contacted the opposite party he informed that the turbo charger of the said vehicle might have turned defective and it needs another Rs.30,000/- to rectify the same. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.22,500/- on 23rd July 2016 as an advance for the same. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle after due repairs but the same problem continued again. When he contacted the opposite party again they misbehaved towards the complainant and threatened him that he can do what he can. The complainant alleges that having received such huge amount from the complainant the opposite party is bound to repair the vehicle without any defects. Without rectifying the problems of the vehicle opposite party has committed deficiency of service on their part and they are liable to compensate the complainant for the financial and mental difficulties suffered by them. Hence the complainant had approach before the Forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.93,050/- collected towards repair of the vehicle and also to grand Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial difficulties suffered by him.
Opposite party entered appearance upon notice from the Forum and filed their version stating the following. The opposite party submits that the complainant had never approached his workshop with the above car and he had not collected any amount from the complainant towards the repair of the said car. The vehicle stated in the complaint was brought to his workshop by one Mr.Noorudheen. The above vehicle was brought for repairs on April 2016 and was handed over after repairs on 20.05.2016. The above vehicle was taken delivery by Mr.Noorudheen after he had driven the vehicle and was completely satisfied with its performance. After running about 2500 kilo meters the above vehicle was brought to his workshop for oil service on 02.07.2016. At that time the opposite party found out that there was turbo problem for the vehicle and informed Mr.Noorudheen to get it rectified. When the complainant consulted with the opposite party for the above repair, he informed that he is not well-versed about the technical knowledge of conducting turbo repairs and directed him to contact the Sreekrishna engine works at Coimbatore. Based on the above information Mr.Noorudheen took the vehicle and entrusted it to the said workshop and got it repaired. The opposite party has not collected any amount towards the repairing of the turbo complaint. Opposite party has repaired the vehicle in good running condition at the time of entrustment. Before repairing itself he had given a list of the spare parts to be changed and he gives one year warranty for the above spare parts which were changed. After repairing the vehicle from Coimbatore the complainant contacted the opposite party and requested for another bill of the previous repair to be delivered in a letter-pad. Accordingly the opposite party had delivered a new bill in their letter-pad to Mr.Noorudheen. The opposite party also submits that the above vehicle was not maintained properly after carrying periodic services and it has covered about 3 lakh kilo meters. The above complaint is filed with a misunderstanding that the opposite party has not changed the spare parts which were given in the list. Those spare parts were handed over to the complainant at the time of entrustment of the vehicle to Mr.Noorudheen. The amount claim in the complaint is highly excessive. The opposite party is not bound to pay the above amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is filed with ulterior motives for unlawful enrichment. The complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties by not impleading Mr.Noorudheen and the institution named Sree Krishna who had conducted the further repairs of turbo repairs. Hence the above complaint has to be dismissed.
Along with the complaint the complainant has also filed an application as IA 328/2016 for inspection of the above vehicle by an expert commissioner. Application was allowed and an expert was appointed to inspect the above vehicle and file a detailed report. Accordingly the expert commissioner has inspected the vehicle and a report was filed. Opposite party filed objections to the above report. Complainant filed chief affidavit. Opposite party filed application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. IA was allowed and complainant was cross examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A4 was marked from the side of the complainant. Opposite party filed a witness list and an application seeking permission to examine the expert commissioner. Application was allowed and the commissioner was examined as CW1. Opposite party also filed chief affidavit. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues that arise for consideration are.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties ?
- If so what are the relief and cost?
Issues No.1 , 2
We have perused the affidavits and documents produced before the Forum. The case of
the complainant is that the opposite party who is a car mechanic misappropriated amounts from the complainant and did not repair the car properly. Hence the performance of the car is not proper. The opposite party contended that he has repaired the car properly and the problem that affects the performance of the car is due to the turbo functioning. The opposite party contended that the turbo system of the car was not repaired by him. Hence he is in no way liable to compensate the petitioner. At the time of cross examination PW1 has categorically admitted that “BZyw sImSp¯ncp¶ Iws¹bnâv Bbncp¶p hml\¯n\v. cmaXv sImSp¯t¸mÄ hml\w dn¸bÀ sNbvXXv AhnsS h¨Ã. tImb¼¯qÀ h¨n«mWv dn¸bÀ sNbvXXv. thsd Øm]\amWv dn¸bÀ sNbvXXv” (page 3 of the deposition last line). It is also evident from Ext.A4 that the bill was issued from Sree Krishna Turbo repairs, Coimbatore which clearly indicates that the turbo was repaired by the Sree Krishna Repairs at Coimbatore. An expert commissioner who had examined the vehicle states that the car was repaired properly by the opposite party and the problem is related to the main hose in the turbo system. The turbo problem that affects the performance of the car is to be redressed by the Sree Krishna Turbo repairs. The opposite party had contended that the Sree Krishna Turbo repairs have to be made a party in this proceedings, but that was not done. A quotation was produced by the complainant which was marked as Ext.A3 to show that the material cost charged by the complainant is high. During cross examination the expert commissioner has admitted that apart from the materials shown in the quotation, other materials and service charges and late charges are required for repairing. A vehicle is not supposed to be good performance after a long usage. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle is running more than 500 kilo meters per day (Admitted by the complainant during cross examination, page 3 of the deposition).
The chief affidavit of the opposite party was also not challenged. There is no evidence before the Forum that opposite party has not repaired the car properly and he is in any way responsible for the alleged mal performance of the car. In view of the above discussions, we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
Hence the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd day of December 2017.
Sd/- Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Photo copy of RC Book for the Vehicle No.KL-45-E-1352
Ext.A2 - Original Bill dated.28.07.2016 issued by Auto Scan, Maruti Centre & New Generation
Vehicles
Ext.A3 - Photo copy of Quotation dated.27.12.2016 issued by Focus Parts Mart, Palakkad to the
Complainant
Ext.A4 - Bill dated.28.07.2016 issued by Sree Krishna Engine Works, Coimbatore
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 - Fathima Beevi
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Commission Report
CW1 - Santhosh
C1 - Expert Commissioners report dated.08.12.2016
Cost
Nil
