IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C.No. 184/2011 (Filed on 25.08.2011)
Between:
T.V. Kurivilla,
Thalayanaparampil Veedu,
Niranam Kizhakkumbhagom Muri,
Kadapra Village, Thiruvalla Taluk.
(By Adv. Abraham Varghese Kadavil) … Complainant.
And:
Kurien @ Bava,
Koodarathil Veedu,
Niranam P.O., Thiruvalla Taluk.
(By Adv. T.S. Radhakrishnan Nair) …. Opposite party.
O R D E R
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant is a farmer having 3 acres of farm cultivating paddy, banana slapping etc. Opposite party is running a Motor Winding Repairing Workshop at Kadapra junction. Complainant has been irrigating the land by using a motor having 1 ½ H.P capacity of Crompton Greaves. When the said motor became faulty, he hired an autorickshaw and took it to opposite party’s shop and entrusted for repairing on 03.02.2011. On 07.02.2011 he paid ` 750 as repairing charges to opposite party and hired an autorickshaw and took the motor to his house. But the motor did not work through opposite party rectified and ensured the proper functioning. In that situation complainant again hired an autorickshaw and took it to opposite party’s workshop on 08.02.2011. On 10.02.2011 opposite party again demanded ` 2,000 as charges for repairing. He asked him not to repair it and be returned. On 11.02.2011 complainant again hired an autorickshaw and took the motor to Geo Agency at Thiruvalla from where he purchased it. The mechanic of the said agony examined and finds that coil, coil frame and allied parts wee missing in the motor. Thereafter complainant approached opposite party and informed that the said parts are not found in motor and asked to return the same. Instead of returning the same, opposite party demanded ` 1,000 as dismantling charge, and told that he would return the parts only on getting the said amount. The above said act of the opposite party is a deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
3. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to opposite party, he was informed to repair the motor by the complainant on 19.02.2011. The motor was situated 5 k.m away from opposite party’s shop, therefore he asked to bring the same at his shop, then only he can repair it. Though the motor was once repaired by a mechanic, the same has not been rectified. Complainant brought the motor before the opposite party’s shop and it was repaired by replacing compressor two bearing and water seal. Thereafter it became functioning. Opposite party demanded ` 750 as charges. But complainant paid ` 650 and took the motor from the shop. After three months complainant informed that the water force is low. Opposite party came and examined by dismantling the motor and found that it has to rewind it, otherwise full force is not achieved on 29.01.2011 the motor brought to the shop. Opposite party asked ` 2,000 for the cost of winding. Complainant agreed to pay the same. Therefore opposite party cut the old coil and cleared it and demanded the price of new coil. But on 29.01.2011 at 8.30, complainant informed through telephone that he would not like to repair the motor and he purchased a new one.
4. On 31.01.2011 complainant and his daughter came and asked to separate the platform from the motor. He did it even though it was a difficult task. Complainant and his daughter took the platform and returned. On 03.02.2011 they sent an autorickshaw and the driver took the motor and returned. The auto driver would not demand the coil that cut and separated from the motor. Therefore it was not returned and kept in opposite party’s custody. Opposite party denied the allegation of taking coil from the motor. Motor cannot fit without coil frame. Opposite party would not demand any charges for separating the platform and complainant has not given any amount to the same. He further denied the allegation of demanding any amount. On the other hand, complainant threatened that he would stop the shop and the functioning of the business. He also threatened to take false charges by using police. Therefore opposite party sent a reply notice demanding charges of ` 1,000, the same is entitled to get from complainant. The allegation of threatening complainant by opposite party is false and malafide. There is no laches or deficiency on opposite party’s part as alleged by complainant. Hence he canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with a compensatory cost of ` 50,000.
5. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs & Costs?
6. Evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, PW2, PW3 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B3. After the closure of evidence, both parties wee heard.
7. Point Nos. 1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the copy of legal notice issued to opposite party. Ext.A2 is the postal receipt of Ext.A1. Ext.A3 is the postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A1.
8. In order to prove the opposite party’s contention, opposite party filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B3. Ext.B1 is the reply notice to Ext.A1. Ext.B2 is the postal receipt of Ext.B1. Ext.B3 is the acknowledgment card of Ext.B1.
9. On the basis of the contention and averment of the parties, we have perused the entire material on record. Complainant’s case is that his motor became faulty and entrusted to opposite party for repairing. Opposite party repaired it and charged ` 750 immediately after it again became faulty and taken for repairing. Opposite party demanded ` 2,000 and coil and allied parts were removed and not returned. Due to the act of opposite party, complainant could not irrigate the land which caused loss of crop and pain and suffering.
10. Opposite party’s contention is that, he repaired the fault of motor and it functioned well. After three months complainant told the fault of not attaining full force. For rectifying the said fault he dismantled and suggested to rewind the motor and demand ` 2,000 as cost of rewinding. As agreed by complainant, he cut old coil. But complainant informed that he purchased a new motor and not intend to repair it. After that complainant and his daughter came and asked to separate platform from motor. He did it. They taken the platform and returned. Thereafter an autorickshaw driver came and took the motor as per the instructing of complainant, but not taken the coil and not given the charges of ` 1,000 for dismantling, cleaning and separation of platform.
11. According to complaint, opposite party rectified the defect of the motor and returned on 07.02.2011 by receiving ` 750 as charges. Immediately after i.e. 08.02.2011 the motor again become faulty and complainant took it to opposite party’s shop. But according to opposite party, he rectified the defect on first time by accepting ` 650 as charges. After three months, complainant again came with the complaint of less water force. But during the cross-examination, PW1 deviated and admitted the complainant’s case. The deposition of DW1 is as follows: “cp-Zn-hkw Ignªv tamt«mÀ XncnsI \evIn. cp aq¶p Znhkw Ign-ªmWv hopw complaint Ds¶v ]d-ª-Xv. AXv t\m¡m-\mWv Rm\pw Iq«p-Im-c\pw IqSn t]mb-Xv. cp aq¶p Znhkw Ign-ªmWv F\n¡v Im Adn-bm-hp¶ Hcp Hmt«m-¡m-csâ Hmt«m-bn-emWv tamt«mÀ sImp h¶Xv“.
12. Another contention of opposite party is that on 31.01.2011 complainant and his daughter came and asked to separate the platform from motor. He did it. They taken the platform and returned. On 03.02.2011 complainant sent an autorickshaw and the driver took the motor and returned, but not demanded the coil that cut and separated from motor. But DW1 contradicted the earlier version which is as follows: “XpSÀ¶v tamt«mÀ AXnsâ FÃm parts Bbn hmZn ]d-ª-X-\p-kcn¨v PW2 h¶v sImp t]mbn.. 2003-þse Crompton Greaves Motorþsâ coil frame available BtWm F¶v F\n-¡-dn--bnÓ .
13. All the above facts and circumstances and the available evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3, it is learnt that opposite party has not come with clean hand. He has not repaired the motor properly even though accepted ` 750 as repairing charges. Immediately after it again became faulty. He further demanded ` 2,000 and removed the coil and not rectified the defect. It is the boundan duty of opposite party to rectify the defect. Disregarding to rectify the defect is a clear deficiency of service which caused untold misery to complainant. But due to lack of cogent evidence, the exorbitant amount claimed by the complainant is not allowable. Therefore, complaint is allowed in part.
14. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part, thereby the opposite party is directed to pay ` 2,000 (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation with a cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will follow 9% interest per annum from this date till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of January, 2012.
(Sd/-)
N. Premkumar,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : T.V. Kuruvilla.
PW2 : V.M. Ravi.
PW3 : Johnson.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of legal notice dated 08.03.2011 issued to opposite party.
A2 : Postal receipt of Ext.A1.
A3 : Postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A1.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : K.C. Kurien.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Reply notice dated 16.03.2011 to Ext.A1.
B2 : Postal receipt of Ext.B1.
B3 : Acknowledgment card of Ext.B1.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) T.V. Kurivilla, Thalayanaparampil Veedu,
Niranam Kizhakkumbhagom Muri,
Kadapra Village, Thiruvalla Taluk.
(2) Kurien @ Bava, Koodarathil Veedu,
Niranam P.O., Thiruvalla Taluk.
(3) The Stock File.
