By Shri. M.P.Chandrakumar, Member :    

          The case of the complainants is that they had purchased a new APE TRUCK on 7-7-18, the Registration No. being KL - 46 A 9115. The vehicle was being used by the 2^nd complainant, the husband of the 1^st complainant, for transporting  coconut and other items, for livelihood. Since  the vehicle developed certain problems including starting complaints,  “ വലി കുറവാണ്, വാഹനം ഓടിക്കുമ്പോള്‍ മിസ്സിംഗ് വരുന്നു” etc, the 2^nd complainant entrusted the vehicle to  the 2^nd opposite party for repairs  on 10-09-12. The opposite party checked the vehicle, informed the complainant the rings, piston etc is to be replaced and that the repairing charge is Rs.15,000/-. As per the promise that the vehicle repair will be completed in 3 days, the complainant went to the opposite party to receive the vehicle. But, since it was informed that the repair will take 4 more days, the complainant approached the opposite party after the period. At that time, the works manager informed that the entire engine should be dismantled and repaired, which will cost Rs.20,000/-. Afterwards, the complainant went for the vehicle several times. But the vehicle was not delivered after the repairs. However, after 16 days, the vehicle was delivered after repairs, along with a slip, stating the repair charges as Rs.22,720/-. When the complainant asked for the proper bill, the opposite party refused to deliver the same. As such, the complainant remitted only Rs.18,000/-. The bill has not yet been issued. When the complainant drove the vehicle, it was understood that none of the defects pointed out has been rectified and thus the defects still exists in the vehicle. Moreover, the opposite party has claimed extra charges, claiming to have repaired the gear box, which was actually without any complaints. As a result, the complainant has suffered great mental distress. Since the defects were not rectified, the complainant was unable to utilize the vehicle for carrying loads properly, which resulted in financial loss also. Even though the complainant approached the opposite party and informed him the position, the opposite party informed that nothing else can be done. The act of the opposite party, in accepting Rs.18, 000/- and not conducting any repairs of the vehicle is gross negligence and deficiency in service. The complainants, therefore issued a lawyer notice dtd 8-11-12, which was accepted by the opposite party on 11-10-12. The reply received was against facts. Hence the complaint filed, with prayers to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.18,000/-, in addition to compensation and cost.

          2)  In the version filed, the 1^st opposite party denies all the allegations in the complaint, stating that they are not dealing in the repair of vehicles. As such the allegation of entrusting the vehicle with them is wrong. When enquired, it is learned that the complainant entrusted the vehicle with 2^nd opposite party. It is further understood that the bill has not been issued, since the complainant has not paid the full amount.  However, since the vehicle has not been entrusted with them, the complaint be dismissed with cost.

          3) In the version filed, the 2^nd opposite party admits the bringing of the vehicle there for repairs on 10-09-12. The opposite party has conducted all the repairs perfectly. The complainant has been explained and convinced of the details of the repair done and of the repair charges of Rs.22,720/-. He had paid Rs.18,000/- for which cash receipt has been issued. He had also promised to pay the balance amount in a week. After this, the complainant took the vehicle, after driving and thereby convincing of the satisfactory performance of the vehicle. The opposite party further states that he has got the information that the complainant transports commodities, exceeding the permissible qty and also uses other drivers for driving the vehicle. According to the opposite party, they are not at all responsible for the problems occurring to the vehicle due to the above acts. The complainant has filed the complaint to escape from remitting the balance amount and also the steps to be taken by the opposite party to realise the balance amount. Considering the above, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

          4) The points for consideration are

                   1. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite  

                        parties?

                   2. If so, compensation and costs.

          5) Evidence consists of P1 to P5 and R1 to R3. Ext. P1 is the copy of the Certificate of Registration dtd. 11-07-2008,  Ext. P2 is the copy of lawyer notice dtd. 8-10-12, Ext. P3 is the postal receipt , Ext. P4 is the A/D  card , Ext. P5 is the reply notice, Ext. R1 & R2   are  the  letter of Authorisation  and  Ext. R3  series  are the job cards dated 8-03-13 , 3-07-13 and 23-07-13.  All of them have filed proof affidavit.

          6) On going through the complaint, it can be seen that the main allegation raised by the complainant in the complaint is that even though the vehicle was entrusted there for certain repairs, the 2^nd opposite party neither repaired the vehicle  nor gave receipt for the amount of Rs.18,000/- accepted out of the total amount of Rs.22,720/- claimed as repair charges. Thus the opposite party accepted Rs.18,000/- without repairing the vehicle. The claim of the 2^nd opposite party is that they have conducted proper repairs. The complainant had accepted the vehicle after driving and confirming the satisfactory repairs. They have given receipt for R.18,000/-, already accepted. The complaint has been filed mainly to escape from remitting the balance amount.

          7) The Forum has gone in detail in to all the matters. The allegation of the complainant, being that no repairs have been done to the vehicle, it was for the 2^nd opposite party to prove before the Forum that the details of the complaints pointed out by the complainant, recorded in the record maintained for the purpose, the details of works/ repairs done as per the job card, how the amount of Rs.22,700/- has been arrived at, the satisfactory acceptance of the vehicle by the complainant after repairs, etc. The 2^nd opposite party could have done the same easily, at least by producing the job card and the detailed bill for Rs.22,700/-.  Instead, the 2^nd opposite party has produced the job cards of a later period. What prevented the opposite party from producing the relevant job card/ proving the works done to the satisfaction of the complainants, has not been explained. Even in the argument notes filed on  30-11-16, the complainants states as follows “റിപ്പയര്‍ ചെയ്തു എന്ന് എതിര്‍കക്ഷികള്‍ പറയുന്ന വാഹനം ഹര്‍ജിക്കാരന് ഓടിച്ചു നോക്കിയപ്പോള്‍ എല്ലാ കേടുപാടുകളും അതുപോലെതന്നെ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു ......... യഥാര്‍ത്ഥത്തില്‍ സര്‍വീസ് നടത്തിയെന്ന് തെറ്റിദ്ധരിപ്പിച്ചാണ് പൈസ 18,000/- വാങ്ങിയത് സര്‍വീസ് ചെയാതതിനാലാണ് ബില്ലും, രസീതിയും തരാതിരുന്നത്”. The Forum could see that the opposite party has failed to prove that the above words are false. As such, we are bound to believe that the words of the complainants are true. We are thus bound to allow the complainant.

          8) In the result, the complaint is allowed. The 2nd opposite party is directed to return back the accepted amount of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand only) with 12% interest from 9-01-13, the date of filing of the complaint.  The 2^nd opposite party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and cost to the complainant, who has been conducting the case for the last four years .The payment should be made within a month of the receipt of the orders.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 31^st day of August 2017.