IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
C C No. 177/2019 (filed on 24-10-2019)
Petitioner : Shibu C.K.
Chirappaeth House,
Perumbaikkad P.O.
Kottayam – 686016.
(Adv. Beena V. John)
Vs.
Opposite Party : Baby Mathew,
New Auto Tech Two Wheeler
Workshop,
Murukkumpuzha P.O.
P.P. Road, Pala – 686575.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The case is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complainant entrusted his KL-36B3305 bullet bike to the opposite party on 06-06-2019 for rectifying the starting complaint of the said vehicle by changing mixing. The opposite party took the vehicle from the house of the complainant by receiving Rs.3500/- as advance. After a few days the complainant visited the workshop upon the request made by the opposite party to evaluate the work. But in the workshop, the parts of the vehicle were dismantled and the opposite party informed the complainant that all those parts had to be replaced. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- for the same. Again after one week, the complainant enquired about the work through his friend and was informed that the vehicle would be delivered after one week only. After two weeks when the complainant went to the opposite party’s workshop to take delivery of vehicle the wiring of the same was not connected. In the evening of the same day when the complainant went again, opposite party delivered the vehicle by charging Rs.14,500/-. When the complainant rode the vehicle there was a sound of the rubbing of the chain, the footrest was loosely fit. So the complainant returned to the opposite party with the vehicle and the opposite party said that the chain was week and this caused the noise. Upon the demand of the complainant, the opposite party set the chain and thus the noise was stopped. The headlight was not working. So the opposite party put an old bulb. Thereafter when the complainant examined the vehicle in detail at home, he realized that many of the spare parts including the engine was not of his vehicle. The engine was not having any number. The chain cover fitting was fitted with a string which was in a good condition when given to the opposite party.
When the complainant informed the condition of the vehicle to the opposite party, he replied that after riding of few kilometres the vehicle should be set again. The complainant again entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party and the next day when the complainant went to the workshop the opposite party gave the vehicle by affixing the original engine number on the duplicate engine. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that the opposite party repaired his vehicle with the stolen parts bought from Ukkadam, Coimbatore. The complainant paid Rs.30,000/- altogether to the opposite party for repairment of the vehicle but even after that the opposite party did not complete the work satisfactorily. The opposite party was neither gave a written assurance on a stamp paper or purchased the vehicle as per the demand of the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed.
Even after receiving notice from this Commission, the opposite party did not turn-up or filed version. So the opposite party is set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit along with Exts.A1 to A4.
After filing the affidavit, the complainant also was absent for further proceedings and did not turn-up for rendering his arguments even after receiving notice from this Commission.
On a perusal of pleadings and evidence on record, it is to be determined that whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and what are the reliefs to be granted to the complainant.
The complainant alleges that he had entrusted his vehicle to the opposite party for certain repair works. But the opposite party had repaired the vehicle improperly by using spare parts of substandard quality.
The complainant has produced Exts.A1 to A4, which are alleged to have given by the opposite party. Only Ext.A1 and A3 are seen connected with the opposite party. Ext.A2 and A4 also are alleged to have issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Though the complainant alleges defective repair works of the vehicle by the opposite party, he has not sought for the assistance of an expert to report to the Commission about the substandard quality of the work done by the opposite party. In the absence of any contrary evidence, we find that the complainant has suffered due to the defective work of the vehicle done by the opposite party. Ext.A1 to A4 are the bills in connection with the repair of the complainant’s vehicle which corroborate the allegation of the complainant that he had paid Rs.30,000/- to the opposite party for the repair of the vehicle.
As the opposite party did not appear before the Commission and adduce any evidence to defend the allegations, we are inclined to allow the complaint. Hence the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to
- Replace the parts of the vehicle with the original parts, to refix the chain cover and kicker liver and to rectify the starting complaint of the vehicle.
- Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint ie. 24-10-2019 till realization.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 13th day of January, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu R Member sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 series : Cash bills issued by Lachu Auto Traders (2 nos.)
A2 – Bill dtd.14-06-19 for Rs.6,950/- issued by S’Silva’s ST. Francis
Engineering Works.
A3 – Bill dtd. 04-07-19 for Rs.11,509/- issued by New Auto Tech Two Wheeler
Workshop.
A4 – Tax invoice dtd.25-06-19 for Rs.6,793/- issued by Ravis Cycles & Spare
Parts.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
