O R D E R
By Smt.Sreeja.S , Member :
The case of the complainant is that he is the RC owner of KL45-J-4939 Honda CB Shine Motor cycle and the vehicle met with an accident on 18/5/2013 at 10.30am with KL-08-AG-3854 Tipper lorry at Parambi road junction. The motor cycle entrusted with opposite party for repair. The opposite party repaired the vehicle and returned on 29/6/15 and charged Rs.36,715/- as repairing charges. But after repairs vehicle showed some defects. The complainant approached the opposite parties with defects, but the opposite parties demanded additional amount for repairs. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service. Hence this complaint filed.
2.On receiving complaint, notice served properly to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared through counsel and filed its version. The contents of version of opposite party is as follows: Complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party admits that the complainant brought accident vehicle with Reg.No.KL-45-J-4939 for repairs on 28/5/2015. The opposite party contended that the vehicle was so damaged that almost all parts of the front portion has to be replaced. The opposite party informed the complainant regarding the major repairs to be done on the vehicle and consent of the complainant obtained and started the repair work. The opposite party taken instruction from the complainant whenever a costly part is to be replaced. The vehicle needed a replacement of its chasis. The same was informed to the complainant and the cost of work including labour charges would cost Rs.10,000/-. But the complainant instructed the opposite party not to replace the chasis because the total cost of repairs already reached about Rs.40,000/-. So the complainant not ready to spend Rs.10,000/- more and hence he is prepared to meet the slight alignment difference of its tyres.
3.The opposite party further contended that exact complaint of the vehicle is not mentioned in the complaint apart from the bald allegations. In the complaint not mentioned the actual repairs of the vehicle at the time of entrustment of vehicle to the opposite party. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.Points for consideration are :
1)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2)If so, what are the reliefs and costs ?
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and three documents, marked as Exts.P1 to P3. Commission report is marked as Ext.C1. Opposite parties filed 3 documents and marked as Exts.R1 to R3.
6.Points: The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of KL45-J-4939. The bike met with an accident with a tipper lorry on 18/5/15. Since the accident caused damages to the vehicle the same were entrusted to the opposite party. Opposite party admits the accident and entrustment of the bike for repairs. Ext.P3 proves the date of accident. The bike was repaired at a cost of Rs.36,715/-. Ext.P2 proves the same. The counsel for the complainant invited our attention to Ext.P1 and stated that the last two pages of Ext.P1 is the part of Ext.P2 and the bill No. and date etc. are one and same. We found it so.
7.It is the further case of complainant is that after repair spending so much of money the vehicle found defective and the request to cure the same were not attended by the opposite party as the complainant not ready to pay additional repair charges. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The opposite parties case is that the chasis of the vehicle need to be replaced and the complainant was accordingly informed since he was not ready to pay additional charges, the same cannot be replaced. The counsel for the opposite parties invited our attention to 3rd page of Ext.R1. It shows minor bent on chasis assembly, minor bent informed customer. As per customer order chasis not replaced or repair. The particular and all pages of job card also bears signature of the complainant. Moreover the last page also shows an entry as chasis little bent. The complainant never objected to marking the document or take steps to call for the original if they disputed the same. The page No.3 of Ext.P1 shows resurvey details includes the requirement and replace of chasis frame as well. Under such circumstances, the opposite parties case in this regard stands proved. Now the Commission has been appointed and he filed Ext.C1 report. The commissioner reported that it can be conceived that the problem of rear tyre wobbling and hitting on the frame is caused due to some misalignment in the chasis of the vehicle. It is obvious that misalignment in the chasis is caused as a result of a bent or deformed chasis. The only defect reported by the commissioner is as above and he noted no defects in any other parts of the vehicle by which has been repaired. Therefore we are of the view that the complainant could not establish a deficiency in service as regards the repairs done on the vehicle by opposite party. Since the contention bent in chasis already raised and only the same has been answered by expert commissioner, we find no tenable case has been established by the complainant regarding defective repairs resulting deficiency in service.
From the above discussions we find that the complainant could not established a cogent case before the Commission warranting dismissal of the case.
In the result complaint dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30th day of July 2021.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja.S C.T.Sabu
Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext.P1 Copy of estimate bill
Ext.P2 copy of sale bill
Ext.P3 Copy of FIR
Ext.C1 – Commission report
Opposite Parties Exhibits
Ext.R1 Job cards
Ext.R2 Invoice
Ext.R3(SP) Photos(11 Nos.)
Id/-
Member
