1.Case of the complainant:-
On 10/10/2021 complainant and his family were travelling from Kozhikode to Manjeri in KL-71-E-1323 Maruthi Alto Car. At 9.50 PM one KSRTC Bus No. KL-15-9534 (RNE 961) coming from Palakkad to Kozhikode hit complainant’s car at Morayur. The driver of the bus was drunk and driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Mother-in-law and daughter of complainant were seriously injured due to the forceful hitting of bus in complainant’s car. More over the car was wrecked due to that accident. Thereafter complainant filed a complaint before the SHO Kondotty and they registered a case against the bus driver.
2. Due to that accident, the complainant’s car was damaged and on 19/10/2021 he had given the car for repair to the opposite party work shop namely Dr. Claim Body Shop, Neettanimmal , Kondotty. Not only was he insured for five years for body parts and repair of his vehicle, he also had bumper to bumper insurance for the vehicle. But even after 1 ½ months over, but the opposite party did not repair the vehicle and complainant contacted him through phone and in person. After 39 days that means on 27/11/2021 opposite party returned back the car to complainant and saying that the car was repaired. Moreover opposite party demanded Rs. 2,230/- as service charge and complainant was forced to pay that amount to opposite party.
3. As the complainant got the car back at night and it was during the Covid pandemic seasons, the complainant was not able to inspect the car properly. On 28/11/2021 when the car was inspected in detail, the complainant had realised that the opposite party had not properly repaired his car. Again on 29/11/2021 complainant had entrusted the vehicle to ''Prime Tech work shop'' at Karuvarakundu for proper repairing. The act of opposite party amounts to an unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
4. The prayer of the complainant is that , he is entitled to get Rs. 2,230/-, the amount received by opposite party from complainant for repairing the vehicle , Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant, Rs. 25,000/- as the amount spent by complainant as taxi charge, Rs. 5200/- for the re- repair done by complainant at Prime Tech , Karuvarakundu and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hard ship suffered by complainant due to the act of opposite party.
5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and notice served on him and he did not turn up. Hence opposite party set exparte.
6. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the Original temporary receipt given by opposite party to complainant on 27/11/2021. Ext.A2 is the invoice given by Prime Tech car service centre to complainant on 29/11/2021, Ext.A3 is the true copy of Certificate –Cum –Policy schedule of complainant’s vehicle from 09/10/2019 to 08/10/2020.
7. In this complaint opposite party was not present before the Commission, hence he set exparte. But the complainant has not been able to prove the allegations against opposite party properly. Complainant submitted Ext A3 document which shows that complainant’s vehicle has insurance coverage from 09/10/2019 to 08/10/2020. But the accident and the alleged damage to the vehicle were caused on 10/10/2021. There is no document to prove that the vehicle No KL-71-E-1323 had bumper to bumper insurance coverage as submitted by complainant. One of the contention of complainant is that his vehicle had bumper to bumper insurance coverage, so he is entitled to get insurance protection for five years for repair and other works of his car. But complainant did not produce a piece of paper to prove that contention raised by complainant before the Commission. There is no document to prove that the date of accident and complainant’s contention regarding the return of vehicle. It is understood that the complainant had done some repair works on 27/11/2021 at opposite party’s workshop and for that he had paid Rs. 2,230/- to opposite party and opposite party had given one temporary receipt for that. In this complaint complainant is failed to prove the contentions raised by him against the opposite party. Complainant is also failed to prove the unfair trade practice done by opposite party. Hence complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2022.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A3
Ext.A1 : Original temporary receipt given by opposite party to complainant on
27/11/2021.
Ext.A2 : Invoice given by Prime Tech car service Centre to complainant on
29/11/2021.
Ext.A3 : True copy of certificate –cum –policy schedule of complainant’s vehicle from
09/10/2019 to 08/10/2020.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
