CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2014
CC.NO.120/2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 25/08/2014
: SMT. SHINY.P.R ,MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA K.P, MEMBER
Elizabeth,
W/o.Cheriyan,
Madhavapalliyil House,
Kodunthirapully, Palakkad : Complainant
Rep.by Power of Attorney Holder.
Cheriyan, S/o.George,
Madhavapalliyil House,
Kodunthirapully, Palakkad.
(By Adv.K.Gopakumar)
Vs
Gireesh, Proprietor, : Opposite party
Greeshma Engineering Works,
Opp.BPL Sanyo,
Chandranagar, Palakkad.
(Party in Person)
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R.Member.
Brief facts of the case:- The complainant is the Registered Owner of the Bolero Jeep bearing No.KL-9/Y 9478. While the complainant and her husband were returning from Kandamangalam near Mannarkkad on 2-2-2014, the ball joint of front wheel of the vehicle has been broken. So the vehicle became unfit to drive and travel. Then the complainant sought the help of the opposite party to bring the vehicle to Palakkad by towing and to give for necessary repairs in the authorized service centre of Mahindra and Mahindra. The complainant’s husband specifically told the opposite party to transport the vehicle by only towing it by lifting the front portion with pulley and with exercising due care. The vehicle at that time was not having any damages or repairs either on the engine, body, chassis or even to tyres other than the defect in the ball joints connected in both of the front wheel assembly. But the opposite Party not at all cared the instructions given by the complainant’s husband. He has taken the vehicle by tying with rope and pulled it with another vehicle. When the vehicle has reached near Mannarkkad, one of the front tyres of the vehicle has burst and became useless. Thus the complainant has incurred an additional expenses of Rs.17,460/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand four hundred and sixty only). Moreover the opposite party has collected Rs.3,800/- (Rupees Three thousand eight hundred only) as towing charges. The actual charges of towing the vehicle is Rs.2,400/- (Rupees Two thousand four hundred only) which was agreed by the opposite party. Due to the severe and careless handling of the vehicle by the opposite party the vehicle had been kept in the workshop for more than 3 days. In order to carry out the entire repairs of the vehicle, the petitioner has spent Rs.17,460/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand four hundred and sixty only) in addition to the actual damages the complainant have only need to spent Rs.2,000/- for repairing the ball joint of the front wheel and the complainant lost the use of vehicle for 4 days and have caused mental agony. The opposite party is responsible for their acts. On 4-6-2014 complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party demanding to pay Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) as total damages. Opposite party neither replied for the same nor redressed the very genuine grievances of the complainant. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for a direction to pay Rs.35,000/-(Rupees Thirty five thousand only) along with future interest @ 12% till its full realization and to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant.
Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite party. After receiving the notice, opposite party did not appear before the forum. Hence set exparte.
Complainant filed his affidavit. Ext.A1 to A4 marked from the side of complainant.
The following issues are considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
2. If so what is the relief and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
Complaint heard: - We have perused the documents on record. It is evident from Ext.A1 and A2 that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.3,800/- (Rupees Three thousand eight hundred only) for towing the vehicle and Rs.17,460/- for repairs of the vehicle. Complainant submitted that due to the negligent act of the opposite party complainant had spent an amount of Rs.17,460/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand four hundred and sixty only) instead of Rs.2,000/-. Apart from this he further submitted that opposite party collected Rs.3,800/- (Rupees Three thousand eight hundred only) instead of Rs.2,400/- (Rupees Two thousand four hundred only). But in Ext.A2 the total expenses for repairs of ball joint of the front wheel is Rs.3,000/-. Hence the opposite party is responsible for additional expenses incurred by the complainant. Since the opposite party remained exparte and not adduced any evidence to the contrary, the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged.
In view of above discussions, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. Hence complaint is allowed partly. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards the expenses incurred by the complainant, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards the compensation for the mental agony suffered due to deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of proceedings.
Ordered amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 9th day of December, 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Suma K.P Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Bill No.496 for Rs.3,800/- issued by Greeshma Engg.works to M/s.ITL Motors, Palakkad.(Original)
Ext.A2 - Bill for Rs.17,460/- issued by ITL Motors to the complainant.(Original)
Ext.A3 series- Copy of the lawyer notice with ack.card dtd.04/06/2014
Ext.A4 - Power of attorney dtd. 23/07/2014 executed by complainant in favour of her husband Cheriyan (Original).
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceeding.
