IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 30th day of August, 2016
Filed on 02.06.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.161/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Smt. Archana Mary Sebastian Sri. Joemon Mathew
Anu Bhavan, Punnakkunnam Joe Multi Cars
Pulinkunnu, Alappuzha Near Monkombu Block Junction
(By Adv. Rajendra Prasad) Thekkekara, A.C. Road
Alappuzha
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant is the owner of the vehicle Maruti Suzuki Zen Estilo bearing Regn. No.KL 42 B 4442. On 21.05.2015 while she was driving the vehicle, she noticed some complaints and entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party for repairing the same. After repairing the work, opposite party received Rs.18,000/- from the complainant. Even after the repairment the defects were noted and complainant showed the vehicle before a work shop at Ernakulam and came to know that the repairs were not done as claimed by the opposite party. Complainant asked the bill for the repairing works done by the opposite party. Bu the opposite party failed to give the bill. The act on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
Since the complainant’s family is residing near to the house of the opposite party, he knows her and hence he was ready to repair the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant asked the opposite party to remove the clutch and also to do some complaints of the vehicle. The opposite party told the complainant that the total amount of repairing will be Rs.18,000/-. After repairing the vehicle the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount within 2 days. But the complainant did not pay the balance amount of Rs.3,000/-. Hence the opposite party asked the balance amount to the complainant’s father who was residing near to his house and as a counter blast against that demand this complaint is filed. The vehicle has no defect as alleged by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed in the complaint.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The document produced marked as Ext. A1. Opposite party was examined as RW1. Document produced marked as Ext.B1.
4. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
5. It is an admitted fact complainant entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party for doing some repair works. According to the complainant after repairing the vehicle, opposite party received Rs.18,000/- from the complainant. But the defects were still remaining. According to the opposite party he has received only Rs.15,000/-, and the vehicle has no defects. In order to prove the allegation of the complainant, an expert commissioner was appointed and the expert report produced is marked as Ext.C1. In Ext.C1 report, the expert commissioner opined that, the Tie rod end, Spark Plug, Steering ball joint were not replaced in the vehicle. But at the same time he reported that the clutch assembly was replaced recently. Hence the allegation of the complainant that the clutch of the vehicle was not replaced by the opposite party is not proved. Another allegation of the complainant is that opposite party received excess amount from the complainant and opposite party failed to give the purchase bill to the complainant. Complainant produced the bill dated 26.5.2015 issued by the opposite party which marked as Ext.A1. As per Ext.A1 the opposite party has received Rs.18,000/- from the complainant. But according to the opposite party, he has received only Rs.15,000/- from the complainant. The endorsement as cash received on Ext.A1 is denied by the opposite party. But it is pertinent to see that had the opposite party entitled to get Rs.3,000/- as balance amount, he ought to have written it in Ext.A1. Since there is no such remarks, the opposite party failed to prove that there is still in a balance amount of Rs.3,000/- remain unpaid. Another allegation of the complainant that, she did not get the purchase bill of the products which the opposite party used to repair her vehicle. The opposite party has produced the bill before the Forum and it marked as Ext.B1. On verifying Ext.B1 it is seen that he has purchased spare parts for Rs.7,510/-. But at the same time Ext.A1 shows that he purchased spare parts for Rs.10,110/-. While cross examining the RW1 he admitted that he will produce the bill for the balance amount before the Forum, but he has not produced it. The opposite party also admitted that Rs.8500/- shown in Ext.A1 was towards labour charges. As per the commission report the spare parts like Tie road end, Spark Plug, Steering ball joint were not replaced. As per Ext.A1 the cost of Steering ball joint is Rs.600/-. Tie rod end is Rs.400/-, and Spark Plug is Rs.280/-. So it is clear that the total amount of those spare parts are Rs.1280/-. Since those spare parts were not replaced the opposite party is bound to refund that the amount of Rs.1,280/- to the complainant. As per Ext.B1 opposite party has received an excess amount of Rs.2600/- [10110 – 7510] from the complainant. In the absence of purchase bill for the same, opposite party is bound to refund that amount also.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1280/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred and eighty only) towards the price of the spare parts which were not replaced and also an amount of Rs.2600/- (Rupees two thousand and six hundred only) towards the excess amount received from the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2016. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Archana Mary Sebastian (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Original of the bill issued by the opposite party
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext.B1 - Sale bill dated 22.5.2015
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
