IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No. 72/07 Between: Vijay Francis, Ettumanukkaran House, Kodakara.P.O., Thrissur Dist – 680 684 (By Adv. R. Gopi Krishnan) ..... Complainant And: Cool Tech, Near Rest House, Muthoor.P.O., Thiruvalla Rep. by its Proprietor, K.P.H. Nizar (By Adv. V. Shahul Hameed) ..... Opposite party. O R D E RSri. N. Premkumar (Member): Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows:- Complainant is working as a Sales Manager of ICICI Bank and opposite party is conducting a shop, named ‘Cool Tech’, providing services for the air conditioners of different types of cars. Complainant entrusted his Maruti 800 A.C car bearing Register No.KL-7C/5890 with opposite party for servicing and filling A.C gas to gain more efficiency. The opposite party made to believe the complainant that he would do the work perfectly. The opposite party filled 134 gas to complainant’s car and also convinced that the A.C compressor baring, drier, ‘O’ ring and oil is to be changed for the effective functioning of the A.C. Accordingly he allowed to change the said parts. On the same day evening opposite party returned the car with the assurance that everything done carefully and made to believe that compressor baring, Drier ‘O’ ring etc. were replaced and charged Rs.2,650/- for the works and the price of the parts changed. The opposite parties deducted Rs.150/- from the total bill and received Rs.2,500/- from the complainant. 3. Even though the filling up of the gas and replacement of spare parts, the cooling was not at all effected in the car on testing. Complainant immediately intimated the matter to opposite party. The opposite party accelerated the vehicle for checking, abruptly, the A.C compressor damaged. The opposite party assured that he would rectify the defects on his own cost. But he did not rectified any of the defect so far. 4. Subsequently the complainant repaired the A.C in another workshop at Mavelikkara named ‘Amrutha’. On enquiry it is found that the gas filled by the opposite party in the car, i.e. ‘134’ is not suitable for Maruti 800 A.C cars. The recommended gas is ‘121’. It is also found that the opposite party had charged higher amount than what is actually required for ‘134’ gas. 5. The complainant got reliable information that the reason behind the damage of the A.C compressor was due to the use of ‘134’ gas instead of ‘12’ gas. The opposite party is also well aware of the consequences in using ‘134’ gas in Maruti-800 cars. Complainant also found that opposite party didn’t changed the compressor baring, Drier and ‘O’ ring even after the acceptance of the price for the same. More over the oil filled by the opposite party was very low quality. Thereafter the complainant requested opposite party to do the needful. But the opposite party threatened the complainant through telephone. On 6.6.2007 complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party at Thiruvalla Police Station. Even then the matter was not resolved. The above said act of the opposite party is a deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for realization of Rs.2,500/- the amount collected by the opposite party with interest along with compensation and cost for the mental agony and sufferings caused to the complainant. 6. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opposite party states that he is a well-experienced car A.C mechanic having more than 12 years experience. He worked as an A.C mechanic in ‘Hundai’ Car Company at Gulf. After that he had started Cool Tec, i.e. Car A.C workshop at Thiruvalla 6 years ago. 7. The complainant’s car is an old model Maruti, which is to be filled with gas No.12 Gas No.134 is the gas to be filled in a new model cars. The cost of gas No.12 was Rs.500/- and gas No.134 was Rs.980/- at that time. If the compressor is filled with gas No.134, the compressor will be damaged and the A.C would not work. The opposite party has not filled the compressor with 134 gas. He had filled it with gas No.12. After the repair of the A.C and using it the complainant was satisfied with the work. 8. After three months of repair, the complainant came to the opposite party with his friend’s car and asked him to exchange the compressor with that of his car. Opposite party expressed his difficulty to do so and advised to fix a new A.C in his car. So the complainant got angry with the opposite party and left the place. On checking it was found that both the compressors are damaged. The complainant told opposite party that it was filled in the car by another workshop. Opposite party refused to do any repairs on A.C because at the time the A.C’s condition was very bad. Mistake happened from the workshop at Mavelikkara. To escape from their fault they put accusation over the opposite party. Complainant also filed a petition before the police with false allegation against opposite party, which was dismissed. 9. If the compressor was filled with gas No.134 it will not work. But the complainant used the A.C for more than 4 months. The default is from the complainant’s side itself. All the damages stated in the complaint has happened due to the repairing or services by unexperienced technicians or mishandling of the vehicle by the complainant. The complainant was trying to grab money from the opposite party after enjoying the benefits of using the repaired A.C. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from he part of opposite party. Therefore opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 10. From the above pleadings, the following points were raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Relief and Costs? 11. The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and one witness who has been examined as PW2 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. For the opposite party, opposite party filed proof affidavit and he was examined as DW1. After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard. 12. Points 1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, he filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is the bill of Rs.2,650/- dated 15.2.2007 issued by the opposite party. Ext.A2 is the quotation issued by the opposite party. Ext.A3 is the copy of petition filed before the Thiruvalla Police Station. Ext.A4 is the receipt issued by Thiruvalla Police to Ext. A3. Ext.A5 is the bill of Rs.4,500/- dated 29.6.2007 issued by Amrutha Work Shop, Mavelikkara. In order to prove opposite party’s contention, he filed proof affidavit and he was examined as DW1. He has not adduced any documentary evidence. 13. On going through the contentions of both parties and on perusing the materials on record, it is seen that there is no dispute that the complainant had entrusted his car to opposite party for servicing and filling up of A.C gas. According to the complainant, gas filled by opposite party is No.134 instead of No.12. When cooling was not effected he contacted the opposite party and who checked the compressor by accelerating the vehicle. During that time A.C compressor was damaged. But opposite party has not rectified the damages. 14. Opposite party’s contention is that he is having 12 years experience as A.C. mechanic. He filled gas No.12 in complainant’s car and properly repaired the A.C. Compressor and A.C. condition damaged due to the repairing by inexperienced technicians in another workshop by the complainant. 15. On going through the deposition of PW1, it is seen that opposite party denied and admitted the issuance of Ext.A1. Relying on the fact and circumstances of the context, we are of the view that the opposite party has issued Ext.A1 bill which is also evident in DW1’s statement, as follows:- “Ext.A1 bill FtâXmWv. Fsâ ]\¯n \n¶p \evInbn«pÅXmWv“. 16. As per contention of opposite party, the cost of gas No.12 was Rs.550/- and gas No.134 was Rs.990/-. He also contended that the compressor is filled with gas No.134, the compressor will be damaged and the A.C will not work. But on a perusal of Ext.A2, it is evident that 134 gas is written as the first item and charge is Rs.900/-, though opposite party denied the issuance and handwriting in it. But by careful examination of Ext.A1 and A2, close similarity is seen in both handwriting. Opposite party admitted that Ext.A3 was lodged by the complainant against him. Contents of Ext.A3 shows that there was a dispute between them, which compelled the complainant to approach the police authorities. 17. On going through the deposition of DW1, which shows discrepancies and contradictions with regard to his own version and proof affidavit and therefore it is not reliable. Apart from the oral evidence, opposite party has not adduced any materials either to substantiate his contention or to discredit the complainant’s case. 18. Moreover there is no reason to disbelieve the oral testimony of PW2, which corroborate the contention of complainant which is as follows:- “R-12 \ndbvt¡ hml\¯n atX¦nepw gas \nd¨m compressorw aw XIcmdpmIpIbpw ln¡mcsâ hml\w Fsâ ASp¯p sImp hcpt¼mAXnsâ compressorpw aw XIcmdv Dmbncp¶p“. 19. Perusing the available evidence on record we are of the view that gas filled by opposite party is unsuitable to Maruti 800, which caused damage both the A.C system and the compressor of the complainant’s car. It is the boundan duty of opposite party to do proper service to the complainant. Rendering defective service to the complainant is a clear deficiency of service and the complaint is maintainable before this Forum. Therefore this complaint is partly allowable with compensation and cost. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case return of Ext.A1 amount with interest is not allowable. However the complainant is entitled to be compensated by the opposite party for his deficiency of service. 20. In the result, complaint is partly allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five hundred only) as compensation and a cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only). The amount so awarded will be paid within one month from this date, failing which interest at the rate of 9% will follow for the whole amount till the whole payment from today. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of December, 2009. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Vijay Francis PW2 : Sreekumar Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Bill No.1819 dated 15.2.2007 for Rs.2,650/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A2 : Work Quotation. A3 : Photocopy of the complaint dated 6.6.2007 submitted by the complainant before the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla. A4 : Acknowledgement Receipt dated 9.6.2007 issued to the complainant by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla. A5 : Cash bill dated 29.6.2007 for Rs.4,500/- issued by Amrutha Work Shop, Mavelikkara to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1 : K.P.H. Nizar Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Vijay Francis, Ettumanukkaran House, Kodakara.P.O., Thrissur Dist – 680 684. (2) K.P.H. Nizar, Proprietor, Cool Tech, Near Rest House, Muthoor.P.O., Thiruvalla. (3) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
