D.O.F. 13.08.2009
D.O.O.17.12.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 17th day of December 2011.
C.C.No.210/2009
Headmaster,
Zara High School,
Thangal Peedika,
P.O.Mokeri, Panoor. Complainant
(Rep.by Adv.K.Viswan)
Executive Director,
T.V.Sundaram Iyengr & Sons Ltd.,
TVS Building,
T.B West Veli Street, Madurai.
(Rep. by M/s.Menon & Menon Advocates) Opposite Party
O R D E R
Sri.K.Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay
`4,00,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and to pay `10,000 as cost of this litigation.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The vehicle purchased for the purpose of transporting students from their house to school and vice versa met with an accident on 4.12.07.The vehicle fell down in a canal and the vehicle sustained substantial damage. Vehicle was taken to opposite party’s workshop at Thottada on 10.12.07. Opposite party assured to deliver the vehicle after repair within 1 ½ months but even after two months the vehicle was not repaired and kept the vehicle in open place without any protection. The complainant paid `30,000 as advance for repair and requested to complete the work at least before closer of school. But because of inordinate delay for repairing, complainant was constrained to arrange taxi for daily rent for the students. The opposite party refuses to attend the work. When complainant reminded of the recurring loss opposite party assured that they are prepared to compensate the same. Complainant remitted `1, 20,000 in addition to the earlier payment. The driver Ramshad and Mr.Muhammad Koya U.K repeatedly approached the opposite party did not repair the vehicle whereby complainant constrained to take the vehicle to Niahil Industries for repair. The complainant incurred `2, 25,000 as repair charge that is `75,000 more than that of the offer made by opposite party. The opposite party agreed to the repair for `1, 50,000. It is due to the negligence of opposite party complainant compelled to spend additional `75,000. Complainant suffered innumerable hardship due to the willful neglect, which complainant estimate a loss of `2, 00,000 in terms of money for the hardship suffered. Moreover he has sustained a loss of `1,25,000 for arrangement of taxi. Hence complainant sent lawyer notice. Opposite party sent reply with false and frivolous contentions. Hence this complaint.
Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the allegations of complainant. The contentions of opposite party in nutshell are as follow: the complainant had been specifically informed at the time of entrusting the vehicle that the repair work would take nearly six months after getting clearance from the insurance company and depositing the amount `30,000. The vehicle garaged on 8.12.07. Estimate for repairs prepared on 10.12.07 and made available to complainant on the same day. The surveyor of Insurance company conducted survey only on10.1.2008. Since this opposite party had no tie up with the National Insurance Company Ltd. the complainant was directed to deposit an amount of `30,000. Complainant deposited the amount only on 11.2.2008. The complainant was informed that it would take 6 months for repair and the complainant agreed. Opposite party commenced repair on 12.2.2008. After repair the vehicle was delivered on 12.8.2008. Complainant paid `1, 20,000. The bill for the work comes to `1, 60,629 but opposite party had collected only `1,50,000 from the complainant. This opposite party had not assured the complainant that the repair work would be completed before 31.3.2008. Arranging of taxi on daily rent and allegation of negligence on the part of opposite party are not correct. The allegation that the vehicle was taken to Niahil Industries as the opposite party failed to attend the work is denied by opposite party. The allegation that the complainant had spent `75,000 in excess is false. There is no fault on the side of opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint.
On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite
Party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as
prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1,PW2, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A19 marked on the side of complainant.
Issue Nos.1 to 3
Complainant alleged that opposite party assured that the vehicle would be delivered within 1 ½ month. Complainant’s case is that opposite party was highly irresponsible and negligent in performing the contract of repair. The complainant remitted `1,20,000 in addition to earlier payment of advance `30,000.Since there was unilateral refusal by the opposite party even after repeated request in performing perfect service, the complainant constrained to take the said vehicle to Niahil Industries for effective repair. The complainant compelled to make an excess expense of `75,000 due to the negligent act of opposite party. The negligence and short coming on the part of opposite party resulted in heavy loss and hardship to complainant which has been assessed as `2, 00,000. Opposite party on the other hand, contended that the vehicle was delivered on 12.8.2008. The bill for the work comes to `1, 60,629 but opposite party had collected only `1, 50,000. The allegation of assurance to repair soon and taxi arranged for picking and dropping the children etc. are false. The surveyor had inspected the vehicle and conducted survey only on 10.1.2008. Complainant deposited the amount on 11.2.2008. As stated earlier the complainant had been informed that it would take 6 months to fabricate the totally damaged vehicle and the complainant have agreed to the same where by, the repair was started on 12.2.2008. After the body fabrication work was completed the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle on 12.8.2008.
Complainant alleged that opposite party promised to deliver the vehicle after repair within 1 ½ months. But complainant adduced no evidence. In cross examination complainant deposed that “ 12.8.08 hn FSp-¡p-T-t¼mÄ 1,20,000 cq] Rm³ sImSp-¯n-«pv”. So complainant admitted that the vehicle was delivered to complainant on 12.8.08. The complainant also deposed that “Ext.A10 t\m¡n-bm hn-bn-Ãm-¯-Xp-sImv thsd hn FSp-¯Xp F¶p ImWp-I-bnÔ. To another question complainant answered that “ Ext.A11 to A19 series t\m¡n-bm FXnÀI-£n-I-fpsS `mK-¯p-mb hogvN-sIm-pmb sNe-hm-sW¶p ImWnÔ. Thus the available evidence goes to show that complainant failed to establish that the excess amount spend by the complainant was due to the fault committed by the opposite party. Complainant also failed to prove that he has arranged separate vehicle on the reason that the vehicle entrusted with the opposite party was not available. Complainant could not produce cogent and clear evidence to prove his allegation and to establish deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence issued 1 to 3 are found against complainant.
In the result, complaint dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1.Copy of the FIR in C.No.227/07 of Panoor Police station.
A2.Copy of the scene mahassar in C.No.227/07
A3.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP
A4. Postal AD
A5. Reply notice issued by OP.
A6 & 7. Copy of repair charge receipt
A8 to A10.Copies of the receipts issued by Nissar.K to complainant.
A11.Copies of the receipts 4 in Nos.
A12 & 13.Copy of the receipts dt.30.8.09
A14to A17.Receipts dt.1.7.08,30.8.08,30.8.08 and 6.12.07
A18.Copy of the letter sent to OP
A19.Copy of the letter issued by Nighil Industries dt.31.8.08.
Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1.K.K.Abdulla
PW2.Abdulnazar.V
Witness examined for the opposite party
DW1. Jinson Baby
/ forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
