By: Smt.  R.K.Madanavally, Member        
    Brief facts:-
    The case of the complainant is that, he had entrusted his vehicle, TN – 22-AH 0707 car for repair on 7/10/13 under opposite party.   After two months the complainant approached opposite party for enquiring about the repair, it was seen that the entire parts of the vehicle was dismantled

    The service boys failed to repair the car and the complainant decided to taken back the vehicle.   But the opposite parties demanded Rs.14000/- as repair charge.   The complainant was not ready to taken back the vehicle and he asked the opposite party to reset the vehicle.

    Thereafter the complainant contacted Mr. Sakeer, who was the managing director of opposite party, but he behaved in an impolite manner.   Thereafter the above said  Sakeer again called the complainant and told him that the vehicle would be in running condition,   if change the wiring kit and he demanded the charge for the same.   In his enquiry, it was understood by the complainant that the value of the wiring kit was almost Rs.10000/-.

    Then the vehicle was taken from Nilambur to Malappuram without intimating the complainant. Several times the complainant contacted the opposite party.   Thereafter one year (2014 October) one Mr. Sreekanth, the service in charge informed him that, the starting trouble had repaired.   The complainant told him that  it was not having any starting trouble but the engine will be off while running.   Then he checked the car again by test drive and thereafter it was repaired and the same was convinced to the complainant.

    After that the complainant approached the opposite party for taking the vehicle.   Opposite party demanded 70,000/- rupees as repair charge.   The complainant told him that he would pay Rs.15000/-, but opposite party was not ready for the same.   According to the complainant the vehicle was repaired by using cheap parts which was brought from Coimbatore.    When he questioned all these to Chief Managing Director, he behaved in a rude manner and thus all the possibility of a mediation was also failed.   Hence this complaint. 

    All averements were denied by the opposite party in their written version.   The vehicle was 2005 model and the complainant was not the RC owner of the said vehicle.   At the time of repairing itself they had informed the complainant that the spare parts were not available since it was an old vehicle.   Then the complainant informed the opposite party executive that they can repair the vehicle in accordance with the availability of the spare parts. 

    The complainant did not explain them the full details of the defects.   When ever they contacted the complainant he was not available.  It was not possible for them to repair the vehicle without the consent of the complainant.   It was only after 2 months of the endorsement, the complaint approached them.   The complainant was negligent.   It was because of the non availability of the spare parts, the vehicle was taken to Malappuram from Nilambur.   The vehicle was brought to the service centre only on 23/1/14 not on 7/10/13.

    Actually the parts of the vehicle was manufactured by different companies.   So it was taken some time to repair the vehicle.   It was fully repaired in 2014 October and the same was convinced to the complainant.   He had to pay Rs.73899/- towards the repairing expenses.  But the complainant was not ready to pay the same.  No deficiency was committed by the opposite party.   The complainant was fully aware of the entire service history and so the complaint has to be dismissed with cost.

    Now the points arises for our consideration here in are;
    (1) Whether the opposite party is deficient in service?
    (2) Relief and cost.

Point No.1  

    The complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext. A1 to A6 (s) are marked on his side.   Ext. A1(s) are the CD’s, Ext. A2 series are the photographs, Ext. A3 is the copy of the ID card of the opposite  party's staff, Ext. A4 is the screen shot of WATS up chatting, Ext. A5 is the Form 29 and 30 and Ext. A6(s) are the details of telephone call lists.

    Opposite party also filed chief affidavit and documents, which are marked as Ext. B1 to B5.  Ext. B1 to B3 are the repair order forms, Ext. B4(s) are the two reminder letters issued by opposite party infavour of the complainant and Ext. B5 is the vehicle Management details of opposite party.

    Heard in detail, perused records.   According to the complainant, he had entrusted the vehicle for repair on 7/10/13.   But according to opposite party, the vehicle was entrusted only on 23/1/14.   The complainant submits that the opposite party has made the entry only on 23/1/14 to avoid enquiries from their service Head.   The complainant has produced Ext. A4 ie the wats up chat with the Senior Technician of opposite party, Mr. Sajinkumar on 2013 November and some history of phone calls ie Ext. A6(s).   All these records prooves that the vehicle was entrusted during the period of 2013 itself.   The learned counsel for opposite party vehemently challenged all these aspects.

    According to opposite party, the above said Sujin kumar is not their service technician, but he was a staff under opposite party several years back.

    It is admittedly true that, the vehicle was taken to Malappuram from Nilambur and now it is repaired also.   But it was repaired only on 2014 October.   The dispute is with regard to the payment of bill.   According to the complainant the defects alleged by the opposite party is not correct.  Both the complainant and opposite party submitted difference of opinion with respect to the defects.   As the vehicle was already repaired during 2014 October, now we cannot say what are the main defects and what types of repair had done.   The mechanic, who repaired the vehicle was not examined by the complainant or the opposite party.

    Since the vehicle was repaired , now it is not possible for assessing the defects and loss with the assistance of an expert.   Any way as per the available evidence and submissions before us, the vehicle is fully repaired.   According to opposite party, the total repair cost will come almost Rs.70,000/-.   The complainant was ready to pay Rs.15000/- at the initial stage itself.   Any way as per the records, the vehicle was repaired in 2014 and now almost two years are over and one cannot predict the present condition of the vehicle.

    It is pertinent to note that the vehicle was repaired after several months.   During these period, the complainant had made several attempts to contact the opposite party and its various staff.   The details of the phone calls produced by the complainant reveals the same.   Even after repeated phone calls and contacts the vehicle was repaired in a very belated stage.  No doubt , it is the service deficiency and unfair trade practice Committed by opposite party.   Hence they are bound to compensate the complainant.   At the same time, the vehicle was 2005 model and certainly the repair cost also will be expensive.   So opposite party is entitled to get a 'reasonable amount' for repair.   They are claiming Rs.73899/- as repair charge.   But we feel that the claiming of the above amount is not justifiable since it was repaired after a long delay.   The 1st point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2  

    In view of the above discussion and findings, we are allowing the complainant and passing the following orders.

    (1) The complainant shall pay Rs.60,000/- to the opposite party as repair charge.
    (2) On receipt of the above amount, opposite party shall give the vehicle to the complainant which  should be free from all defects.
    (3) The complainant is entitled to get Rs.25000/- from opposite party as compensation for mental agony and hardships suffered by him due to the inordinate delay in repairing the vehicle by opposite party along with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.   The above total amount of Rs.35000/- can be adjusted by the complainant towards the 1st order. 

    This order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order.   
    
    Dated  this 30th   day  of August,  2016.

                                    A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
 

 R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER                                             

 MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
                                         
                               

APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant        :   Nil
Documents marked on the side of  the complainant        :   Ext.A1to A5
Ext.A1    (s)   : CD's  
Ext.A2    (s)    :  Photographs      
Ext A3       :  Copy of the ID card of the opposite  party's staff.
Ext A4           :  Screen shot of WATS up chatting.                           
Ext A5        :   Form 29 and 30                                 
Ext A6(s)    :  Details of telephone call lists.  
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party      :   Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party    :   Ext. B1 to B5 
Ext.B1     :  Repair order form.
Ext.B2        :  Repair order form.      
Ext.B3     :  Repair order form.                          
Ext.B4(s)  :  Two reminder letters issued by opposite party.                                                                  

Ext.B5         :  Vehicle Management details of opposite party.    
                                  

                                                    
                                    A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
 

 R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER                                             

 MINI MATHEW, MEMBER