SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT:

   Complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of  Consumer Protection Act 1986, for getting an order directing the OP to pay Rs.1137389/- towards compensation to the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair  trade practice.

    The case of the complainant is that complainant  is the owner of KL-59E 3980 Mahindra Maximo Mini van, that  he purchased the vehicle through  the OP and he used to do regularly its periodical services from the OP.  On 29/1/2017 the complainant had  go to his brothers house at Manathavadi which is about 80kms away from his  house, before staring the long trip the complainant  on 28/1/2017 approached  the OP for 90000kms full service and a complete check up of the vehicle.  On 29/1/2017 while driving the vehicle , the complainant felt that there is some problem to the vehicle  while  applying  the brake. Therefore the  complainant drove the vehicle  cautiously with utmost care, while the vehicle was driving through the Churam road to is lower side, then the vehicle  lost the brake completely.  The right side of the road was terrifically deep terrain and in order to avoid the vehicle falling into the deep terrain he turned the vehicle to the left side and by hitting on the hillock  on the left side the vehicle capsized and fell into the deep place .  The complainant and his family members somehow escaped from the accident with serious injuries such as fractures and multiple injuries.  After the accident the  vehicle was crane lifted to the workshop at Iritty which was about 30km away from the accident spot.  After inspecting  and checking the vehicle , it was understood that the accident was caused due to leakage in the brake oil pipe and hence  the brake was lost completely, which led to the accident.  The vehicle had no problem till the previous days service in the  service centre of the OP and the accident was caused due to negligence of the  service personnel in the  service caner of the OP.  They have mishandled the brake system of the vehicle causing  damage to it and therefore the brake oil was leaked and finally it caused to the leakage  of brake fluid and complete brake loss.  The OP is responsible for the accident caused to the vehicle. Due to the  deficiency of service by the OP the complainant  suffered mentally, physically and financially.  Hence this complaint.

   After service of notice, OP appeared through counsel filed its version.  OP submits that on 28/1/2017 the complainant had entrusted the vehicle  for doing the regular service at 90000km,  check  front left side noise, check steering noise, four wheel break check and also to do  the  silencer coating.  All the above works were done properly and handed over the  vehicle after taking redelivery  checking including driving test and the complainant received the vehicle with full satisfaction. The OP denies the allegation  that on 29/1/2017 the vehicle lost its brake due to leakage of brake fluid and accident was  due to  lack of brake and  the leakage of brake fluid was due to  negligence in service of OP.  The OP submits that the accident  was due to over speed and negligence on the part of  the driver of the vehicle. The OP further submits that there was no deficiency in service on their part and he is not liable to compensate the complainant  and the damages  are not suffered by the complainant and  the same was deliberately  concocted for filing this complaint .  Hence prays  for the dismissal of complaint.

   In order to substantiate the complainant averments, complainant filed the affidavit  evidence and produced some documents.  OP has also filed affidavit evidence and produced the history of vehicle.

   After that the counsel of complainant filed argument note and the OP’ s counsel made oral argument before us.

   The undisputed facts  in this case is  the  complainant purchased the vehicle through the OP and he used to do regular periodic service from the OP.  Further on 28/1/2017 complainant entrusted the vehicle to OP to do over all check-up of the vehicle(Exts.A1,B1 series)

    Complainant’s case is that till the service done by OP on28/1/2017, the vehicle had no problem and the accident happened on  29/1/2017 was caused due to negligence of the service personal of the OP  ie, they have mishandled the break system of the vehicle causing damage to it, therefore the brake  oil was leaked and finally it caused to the leakage of brake fluid and complete break loss.  Complainant alleged that the OP is responsible for the accident caused to the  vehicle.

   On the other hand OP contended that the complainant had entrusted the vehicle on 28/1/2017 for doing the regular service at 90000km,  check  front left side noise, check steering noise, four wheel break check and also silencer coating.  Further contended that all the above works were done properly and handed over the  vehicle after taking redelivery  checking including driving test and the complainant received the vehicle with full satisfaction.  OP contended that the alleged accident was caused  not due to  lack of brake and  the leakage of brake fluid.  It was happened  due to over speed and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.

      Here complainant produced Ext.A3 the estimate given by  Master Tech Motors dated 31/1/2017 and Ext.A4 statement given from Master Tech Motors  car workshop dtd.14/2/2017 to prove the averments of the complainant. Both the documents were opposed by the OP.  In Ext.A4 it is stated that after the alleged accident when the vehicle was inspected at the work shop, it was come to understand  that the loss of brake was due to leak of brake fuel from brake oil pipe and  wheel cylinder was  fitted recently and  the fitting of brake  line to wheel cylinder was not in a proper way and that in the reason for leak of brake fuel   from break oil pipe.  Though Ext.A4 is an important  document, since OP objected  the authenticity of the said document, complainant ought to have proved it by examining the person who issued it.  Further complainant has not  submitted the repair bill to establish the repair  work done after the accident.  The Ext.A3 estimate is not sufficient. Complainant has also not submitted FIR  to prove the occurrence of accident.  According to OP all the documents produced by the complainant are fraudulent documents created fraudulently by complainant.

      Here the complainant failed to prove the alleged accident, cost incurred for repair work, the actual reason  for the accident and deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the OP.

   In the result complaint  fails  and hence  the same is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Exts:

A-Tax invoice dt.28/1/17

A2-certificate issued by Kelakam police

A3-estimate

A4-certificate issued by master Tech motors

A5-photos of accident vehicle

B1-  vehicle history

PW1-K.N.Sureshan-complainant

DW1-Vinesh.M- OP

Sd/                                                              Sd/                                                   Sd/

PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER                                          MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                     Molykutty Mathew                              Sajeesh K.P

eva         

                                                   /Forwarded by Order/

                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR