BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 01/2016 Filed on 04/01/2016

ORDER DATED: 28/05/2022

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

Complainant had given his bike to 1^st opposite party for the purpose to change the oil filter and to top up the level of engine oil.  The service Manager informed him that both of his requirements can be done on a cost of Rs.100/-.  But the 1^st opposite party had demanded Rs.375/- in the evening through phone.  The complainant came in the evening and he was not ready to pay the costs of Rs.375/-.  Then the 1^st opposite party had removed the oil and engine clogging was caused intentionally and received the cost of oil filter change and oil change from the complainant.  Thereafter the vehicle had started over heating and stopped in several times.  The damage of vehicle is caused due to the acts of 1^st opposite party.  The complainant had taken the vehicle to 1^st opposite party in several times for repairing.  But the defects of vehicle is not cured.  The vehicle runs for 400km the complainant had informed the defects of vehicle to 2^nd opposite party and they take back the vehicle from 1^st opposite party.  The mechanic informed that oil pump closed is caused the damage of vehicle.  Thereafter the overheating was decreased and making cranky noises.  The complainant stated that his bike is in good condition and the 1^st opposite party had damaged the vehicle.  So he sent a notice to service centre Manager.  One of the mechanic demanded Rs.2,000/- to repair the vehicle.  The acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint. 

Written statement filed by the 1^st opposite party.  As far as the 1^st opposite party is concerned, it is not possible to inform the customer about the entire cost of service before commencing the works but an approximate estimated cost can be instructed to him.  Vehicle brought at the service centre, it was inspected by the service Manager and informed the complainant that the vehicle will be delivered in the evening upon completion of works.  And as per the demand of the complainant the engine oil level was filled up to the required limit using almost one litre oil and the oil filter also changed.  The complainant came in the evening, drove the vehicle and satisfied with the works done.  But he was not ready to pay the cost of the engine oil used.  He disputed with the quantity of the engine oil used.  He contended that the engine oil level was almost satisfactory at the time of handing over the vehicle and only 250 ml. is required to maintain the required level etc.  The complainant created a tense situation there and finally he was constrained to pay the entire cost of Rs.392/- including cost of the engine oil and labour charges etc.  At the time of payment the complainant challenged the 1^st opposite party that he will teach them lesson by initiating legal action against them.  The complainant brought the vehicle only for the purpose to top up the engine oil level and to change the oil filter.  No mechanical defects have been raised by the complainant and no such works were done on the vehicle.  Top up of the engine oil level and change of oil filter can never cause any mechanical defects to the engine as alleged by the complainant.  Mechanical defects, if any as alleged by the complainant, that may be due to the reckless usage of the vehicle by the complainant contrary to the stipulations laid down in the owner’s manual.  It is mandatory from the part of the complainant that the mechanical defects if any have to be proved with the support of expert opinion.  Top up of engine oil level and change of oil filter will never cause engine clogging crank noise etc.  The 1^st opposite party is not liable to pay any sort of compensation to the complainant for the defects caused to his vehicle due to the reckless usage of the same against the conditions stipulated in the Owner’s Manual. 

Written submission filed by the 2^nd opposite party.  Complainant is pertaining to a Suzuki GS-150 (herein referred to as “concerned vehicle”) purchased from 1^st opposite party bearing registration No. KL 01 BL4935 purchased on 13/06/2013 and having already run 17,552 kms.  That the complainant has filed the present case against the deficiency in services on the part of the 1^st opposite party (Service centre/Dealer) alleging that after the service the bike started overheating and making cranky noises.  The complainant’s version that the engine clogging was caused intentionally by the dealer/service centre, no liability arises on part of the 2^nd opposite party as it is crystal clear that the grievance of the complainant relates to deficiency in service.  That it is settled law that a dealer/service centre is liable in case of deficiency in service and 2^nd opposite party is no liable.    

Complainant filed affidavit and documents.  Ext.P1 to P3 marked from the side of complainant and cross examined by 2^nd opposite party.  2^nd opposite party filed affidavit no documents marked from the side of 2^nd opposite party, 1^st opposite party not filed affidavit and not marked documents.              

Issues to be considered are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the cost and relief?

Issues No.1&2:- we perused relevant documents on records.  Ext.P1 to P3 are the Job card retail cash memo.  The complainant stated that after the repair done by 1^st opposite party the vehicle had started overheating.  The damage of vehicle caused due to the repair of 1^st opposite party.  The complainant had not taken any steps to prove the damage of vehicle.  The complainant was not present before the Commission since 26/03/2018.  The complainant had not taken steps to prove the defects of the vehicle caused due to the alleged act on the part of 1^st opposite party.

In view the above discussion we find that the complainant miserably failed to prove his case. 

In the result complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 28^th day of May,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 01/2016

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                                                            Sd/-

PRESIDENT