SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complaint is filed against the motor vehicle service station for deficiency in servicing the complainant's motor bike.

The complainant is the registered owner of a Hero Honda bike bearing Reg.No.KL-6C-763.On 13.06.2008, the complainant entrusted his vehicle to the opposite party for regular service and water service. But in the evening at 5.15 pm, when the complainant approached the opposite party, the opposite party replied that there is scarcity of water from the last day onwards and they were not able to service the vehicle with water. So the complainant refused to pay the charge of Rs.50/- for the water service of the vehicle. But the opposite party illtreated the complainant. The opposite party never told to the complainant about the scarcity of water at the time of giving the vehicle for the service and so the complaint is filed for deficiency in service of the opposite party and such other reliefs.

2. The opposite party filed a written version and admitted that on 13.06.2008 at about in the noon time, the complainant approached the opposite party for servicing his Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-6C-763. It was given for the regular periodical service of the vehicle. No instruction was given to the opposite party by the complainant about the mode of service at the time of giving the vehicle for service. The opposite party is conducting the service station for the last 4 years and there is a definite chart of labour charges for the service of the vehicle, given to the customers of the opposite party. The complainant's vehicle was mechanically serviced and they were not able to service the vehicle with water. That is because the motor pump of the service station was damaged due to electrical short circuit. The matter was informed to the complainant on the same day itself, it is written on the back side of the receipt of the opposite party and offered water service of the vehicle on the very next day. The ordinary cost of periodical service of the vehicle is Rs.140/-. The vehicle was not serviced with water and so only Rs.110/- is charged against the complainant. So there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the petition may be dismissed.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 marked on the side of the complainant. One witness was examined on the part of the opposite party as DW1 and Exts.R1 to R3 marked.
 

5.The POINT :-The complainant approached the opposite party for regular service and water service of his Hero Honda bike bearing Registration No.KL-6C-763. A specific direction was given to the opposite party that the water service must be done before the mechanical service. But in the evening when the complainant approached for taking back the vehicle, the vehicle was not serviced with water. It is admitted by the opposite party that the vehicle was given for service to the opposite party's service station. But the water service was not done by the opposite party. Ext.P1 is the bill for the same. Complainant examined as PW1 and he deposed that when the complainant approached the opposite party in the evening at about 6'O clock, the vehicle was not serviced with water. Because it was late, he was not able to service the vehicle in another service station. Opposite party's Manager was examined as DW1. As per the rules of the Hero Honda company, they usually does the mechanical service before water service. Because of scarcity of water they were not able to do water service. They have charged for mechanical service only. No payment was given for water service. No harassment was made. They only told him that the vehicle would give back only if the complainant pays the money for mechanical service. Hence the complainant did not pay any money for water service. There is no evidence shows that the complainant is going for a function or any other marriage party like that with the serviced vehicle. He was going to see his wife who is under maternity leave. There is no evidence to show that the vehicle was too dirt to drive. There is no other inconvenience caused to him, because of the non service of the vehicle with water. The vehicle was not serviced with water because of lack of water. There should be dispute or talk caused because of the same. It is quite natural. No charge is also paid for water service. Hence there is no deficiency is seen from the part of the opposite party.

Hence the petition is dismissed. No cost is ordered against the petitioner.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of September, 2008