D.O.F:05/04/2017
D.O.O:18/04/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.69/2017
Dated this, the 18th day of April 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Saraswathi
Anadhabhavan House
P.O Ednad
Naikap Kumbala 671321 : Complainant
And
Arif
Proprietor Pune Autoworks and :Opposite Party
Service Centre Kopra Bazar Mogral
Kasaragod
(Adv. Saleel.P.V)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The complainant is alleging deficiency in service and negligence on the part of Opposite Party as they delayed the repair work of the complainant’s car for seven months and charged the bill amount for the same spare parts twice or more.
The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that her I 20 car bearing No: Kl -14 M 4321 car met a minor accident on July 2016. The vehicle sustained little damage and dent . The aforesaid vehicle was entrusted to Opposite Party for repair on the date of accident itself. The Arif and two other partners are the owner of the Pune Auto works garage. They started the repair work only after three months. The Complainant contacted the Opposite Parties many times but they showed utter carelessness and adamant behavior. Finally the complainant got the vehicle after repair on February 2017 after seven months The Opposite Party charged altogether Rs. 87000/ -from the complainant it was a huge amount for small works. Complainant received only Rs. 29475/- from insurance company. Vehicle covers bumber to bumber insurance coverage. When she perused the bill it is found that Opposite Party charged bill amount for same spare parts twice or more. The spare parts namely carrier assy front end module which cost 8838/- was charged twice . Another spare parts handel assy door outside was charged three times. Due to the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of Opposite Parties complainant suffered heavy loss and mental agony. The Complainant estimates a sum of Rs. 90000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of Opposite Parties along with refund of Rs. 87000/- ,repair charge collected from her by Opposite Parties with cost.
Notice served to opposite party, but did not turned up. Name of opposite party called absent set exparte. The opposite party filed IA 195/17 to set aside the exparte order.IA allowed and version accepted,.
The Opposite Parties filed written version admitting the accident and entrustment of the vehicle with Opposite Party for repair. Right side of the vehicle got little damage and dents. The Opposite Party further states that he had no connection with Pune Auto works and service center during the time when the complainant entrusted the vehicle for repair. The Opposite Party and two others entered in to an agreement with one Abdulla who was the owner of the service centre in the month of December 2016. Thereafter they are jointly managing the service centre on partnership basis. Due to the accident complainants vehicle was completely damaged, huge repair work conducted for the vehicle Front afron both door frame of the door, front bonnet of the vehicle were changed and the engine was re fitted, painting work also done . All the parts required for repair were ordered and brought from Honda showroom itself to purchase the spare parts this Opposite Party accompanied the complainant .According to opposite party some of the spare parts were repeatedly mentioned in the bill because the Opposite Party had ordered the same spare parts from the same show room for other customers also and the showroom authority made the bill together with the bill of this complainant. The Opposite Party had deducted that amount from the complainant and charged only for the spare parts required for her damaged vehicle. The Opposite Party had not issued the bill or charged Rs 87000/- as labour charge as alleged. This Opposite Party had charged only a meager amount of Rs. 56,500/- by making every possible deduction to the complainant. There is no deficincy in service on the part of Opposite Party in any manner and had not received any amount from the complainant illegally. Opposite Party further submits that reliefs sought by the complainant is imaginatory and speculative .This complaint is filed with ulterior motive to harass the Opposite Party and to defame the reputation of the firm of Opposite Party infornt of the public. Hence complaint may be dismissed with compensatory costs.
The complainant was continuously absent in 3 occasions and the complaint was taken for orders on 15/01/2021, thereafter the complainant filed IA 14/21 to re-open the evidence. The IA heard and allowed on terms. The complainant complied the IA order.
Complainant’s son Prahlad filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext A1 to A3. Complainant is cross examined by the counsel of Opposite Party as Pw1. Opposite Parties submitted that they have no evidence both side heard and documents perused. Earlier opposite party raised preliminary issues which was properly heard and given separate interim order.
The main questions raised for consideration are
- Whether there is deficiency in service or negligence on the part of Opposite Party as alleged in the complaint.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation
- If so what is the reliefs
For convenience issue No 1and 2 can be discussed together.
The complainant is a teacher who is the owner of the car mentioned in this case. The car met with a minor accident and got damaged. The damaged vehicle is entrusted to Opposite Party for repair. The complainant’s son deposed before the commission that the quotation given from garage is approved by insurance company and allowed Rs. 29475/- as repair charge. According to the complainant Opposite Party garage is bound to give the balance amount for the loss suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.
The Opposite Party contented that he had no connection with the Pune Auto Works and service centre during the time when the complainant entrusted the vehicle for repair Later Opposite Party joined with another and managing the service centre on partnership basis. Opposite Party contacted the complainant and all the repair works were made on emergent basis. All the parts were purchased in the presence of the complainant. The Opposite Party denied the allegation of collecting of labour charge of Rs. 87,000/- from complainant and stated that only Rs. 50, 500/- is charged by making all deductions.
Ext A1 is the invoice issued by Pune auto works Dated: 14/02/2017 for Rs. 87000/- , Ext A2 is the receipts for Rs87000 issued by opposite party., Ext A3 is the counter sale invoice, Ext A2 proves that Opposite Party received Rs. 87000/- from the complainant on 14/02/2017 . In Ext A3 Opposite Party charged the bill amount for same spare parts many times. Carrier assay front end module and handle assay door outside was shown twice in Ext A3 document. The Ext A1 to A3 proves that there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of Opposite Party. So the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the loss and agony undergone due to the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.
Issue no 3
The complainant is claiming the refund of Rs 87000/- ,repair charge collected from the complainant with compensation of Rs 90000/ from opposite party., which is baseless and very high. The opposite party had done some repair works Ext A3 proves that prices of the sum of spare parts has been added twice or thrice. We carefully gone through and affidavit and documents produced by the complainant and version of opposite party .The opposite party has not produced any documentary evidence to contradict the evidence given by the complainant considering the negligent attitude of opposite party and the inordinate delay caused in repair work and delivary we are of the view that opposite parties are liable to give a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with cost of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant .
In the result complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to give a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) along with Rs. 5000/- as cost.
The time for compliance is 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Invoice
A2- Receipt
A3- Counter sale invoice
Witness Examined
Pw1- Prahalad
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
