IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 29th day of June 2009 CC.No.149/2008 C.M.Chacko, Chindarmani, P.O.Manathana, Complainant Excel Motors, Keezhur, Iritty (Rep.by Adv.Vinod Kumar Chambalon) 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 a sum of Rs.15, 000/- as compensation. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: Complainant is the owner of KL.10M 7255 Hero Honda splendor. Since there was an unusual sound out of the Engine vehicle was taken to a mechanic and he told that the clutch is under complaint. Then the vehicle was taken to Hero Honda Excel Motors, in Iritty. They said the vehicle could be repaired with an amount of less than Rs.1000/-. Vehicle was entrusted to them on 15.4.08. He went there next day to take back the vehicle. They issued a bill for an amount of Rs.1948/- and he paid Rs.1900/- after a deduction of Rs.48/-. When the vehicle tested it could be noticed that the same complaint of sound remains not solved. When it was brought to the notice of mechanic he said that will be all right gradually while on running of the vehicle. But even after one month running the sound had not been reduced instead increased step by step. When contacted workshop they only said it will be all right with a little more running. On 17.5.08 when it became totally useless the vehicle was taken in a pick up van to a mechanic in Thalassery. He repaired the vehicle and also opinioned that the complaint had been remained only because it was not repaired properly Rs.1876/- was paid for the repair. Thereafter many time complainant visited the owner of Excel Motors and told him about his loss but he talked to me disdainfully and insulted the complainant. Complainant suffered a loss of Rs.15, 000/-. Deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending as follows: Opposite party admitted that the complainant entrusted the vehicle for repair on 16.4.2008. As per the direction of the complainant job card was prepared and repair was done accordingly. The spare parts were purchased by the complaint from the shop and entrusted to the repairing section. Due to the state of being old it was required more than sixteen spare parts, which alone cost Rs.1341/-. More over engine oil was changed as per the direction of the complaint and Rs.607/-was charged including service chare by another bill. Trial run was conducted after repair and recorded satisfaction before taking back the vehicle. Thereafter no fault was reported with respect to this vehicle and never taken the vehicle to the shop of this opposite party. Complaint if approached this opposite party with any complaint of the vehicle repair would have been carried on to cure the defects. The institution of this opposite party is the only centre for the Hero Honda cycle in Iritty and neighboring panchayths. This complaint is an ill motivated attempt to defame the opposite party. Hence to dismiss this complaint with cost. 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 any remedy as prayed in the complaint? 3.Relief and cost. The evidence consist of oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant and Exts.B1 to B4 marked on the side of the opposite party. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 Admittedly the complaint repaired the vehicle Hero Honda splendor motorbike from the shop of opposite party M/s. Hero Honda Excel Motors, Iritty. The case of the complaint is that owing to the defective repair of the opposite party complainant was constrained to take the vehicle to a mechanic at ‘Thalassery and vehicle was well repaired and cured the defect. The vehicle happened to take to Thalassery only because it was not repaired by the opposite party defect free. So the opposite party is liable for the loss. Complainant has adduced oral evidence in tune with the pleadings. The vehicle was entrusted to opposite party on 15.4.08 for repair and the same returned to him on 16.4.08. It shows complainant has availed service of the opposite party as a consumer. Complainant entrusted the vehicle with opposite party since his institution is the authorized workshop of Hero Honda. But he was not satisfied because the defect was not totally cured. Ext.A3 (a), A3 (b) and A3(c) reveals that the vehicle was repaired from Fortune Motors. Vehicle would have; been taken to opposite party if complainant was satisfied with the repair work the opposite party has done earlier. Opposite partie repaired the vehicle one month before. There is no need to disbelieve the complainant that he has reported complaint to opposite party with respect to the vehicle. Complainant has taken much trouble to shift the vehicle to Tell cherry. It can very well assume that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complaint has pointed out the defect on the same day. But opposite party’s answer was that it will be all right on running. Every time the complaint approached the opposite party he repeated the same answer. Then naturally complaint hesitated to take the vehicle again to opposite party but shifted to Thalassery. On going through the evidence on record it reveals that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Considering the situation we are of opinion that an amount of Rs.1000/- as compensation will meet the end of justice. Complainant thus entitled for an amount of Rs.1000/- as compensation from the opposite party together with Rs.250/- as cost of this proceedings. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation together with Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as cost of this proceedings to the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complaint; is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party as per the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Acknowledgement issued by OP A2 & A3.Payment receipts issued by Opposite party Exhibits for the opposite party B1.Warranty job card No.7255 B2.History card B3 &B4.Cash bills dt.16.4.08 Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.C.V.Santhosh /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur | 
