Date of filing : 23-11-2012
Date of order : 28-01-2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.320/2012
Dated this, the 28th day of January 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Abdul Azeez, Sa/o. Abdulrahiman Haji, : Complainant
R/at Puzhakkara House, Po.Perumbatta,
West Eleri GP, Kasaragod. 671131.
(Adv.K.Shirkathashetty, Kasaragod)
1 Kairali Engine Re-Builders, : Opposite parties
Behind Kotechery Petrol Pump,
Po.thane, Kannur 670012.
(Adv.Anurag.TC.Kannur & Manikandan.A,Hosdurg)
2 AMMAS,
Authorised Service Station of TATA Motors,
V.V.Nagar, Cheruvathur. 671313, Kasaragod.
(Adv.M.K.Baburajan, Hosdurg)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The brief facts of the case of Sri. Abdul Azeez is that he is the owner of the bus bearing Reg.No.KL 14F 6622 which is run by the complainant for his livelihood in the route of Kanhangad-Payyanur. The engine of the said bus developed defect of oil leakage, hence the engine dismantled by witness fitter Jinu and was kept for repair and service at opposite party No.1 on 4-10-2012, after stating duly repaired opposite party No.1 collected Rs.9750/- as service charge and replaced spare parts of worth Rs.47,745/-. After taking delivery of the said engine refitted to the bus, again showed the very same problem hence once again kept for service with opposite party No.1 assured the fitter Jinu that they will take the responsibility to pay the service charge of opposite party No.2 after repair, eventhough the defect was perfectly rectified by opposite party No.2, opposite party No.1 did not pay the service charge of Rs.9913/-. Thus opposite party No.1 shown deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused loss of income hardship and physical strain etc to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is bound to refund repair charges with compensation. Hence the complaint.
2. Opposite party No.1 filed version stating that, the complainant is the owner of the bus bearing Reg.No.KL-14 F 6622 is unaware to this opposite party. Opposite party No.1 never acquainted the complainant. Opposite party No.1 further submits that one Mr.Jinu has come to opposite party No.1 with a dismantled portion of the engine and asked to repair the same by replacing some fittings and parts. Opposite party No.1 has done that work on 4-10-2012. Opposite party No.1 does not know whether the engine parts are one and the same mentioned in the complaint. Opposite party No.1 denied the allegation that he promised opposite party No.2 to give the service charge of Rs.9913/-. Another contention raised by opposite party No.1 is that there is no consumer relation between them and the complainant. Moreover, all transactions were done at Kannur and there is jurisdiction to try this case before this Hon’ble forum. There is no deficiency in service by opposite party No.2 hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. Opposite party No.2 filed version admitted that the complainant has brought the vehicle mentioned in the complaint, in the workshop of opposite party No.2 and he has paid Rs.9913/- to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 further admits that the vehicle brought to opposite party No.2 with the complaint of oil mixing with radiator coolant. The complainant at the time of delivery told to opposite party No.2 that the above vehicle has entrusted to opposite party No.1 to repair the same. Opposite party No.1 could not find out the defects, hence it has been entrusted to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 has found the defects and suggested to replace the cylinder block. But the complainant requested opposite party No.2 repair the cylinder blocked as a temporary arrangement. Opposite party No.2 has done work entrusted by the complainant, correctly and promptly. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.
4. Complainant filed chief affidavit Exts A1 to A6 marked.
The main question raised for consideration are:
1 whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2 If so, what is the relief?
5. Points Nos 1 & 2: Complainant is the owner of the bus bearing Reg.No.KL-14F-662 which is run by him in the route of Kanhnagad-Payyanur. The said bus engine developed defect of oil leakage, engine dismantled and was kept repair and service at opposite party No.1 on 4-10-2012, in the evening after duly repaired and delivered the vehicle after collecting Rs.97560/- as service charge replaced spare parts of worth Rs.47,745/-. After taking delivery the said bus again showed the same problem once again it was dismantled and kept for service with opposite party No.1 Inspite of the 2nd repair also opposite party No.1 could not rectify the defects, hence it is entrusted to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 found the defects and suggested to replace the cylinder block to rectify the defects permanently. But the complainant was not ready to replace the cylinder block and repaired it as a temporary arrangement. Opposite party No.2 has done the work correctly and promptly. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.
6. Opposite party No.1 in his version admitted that one Mr. Jinu, has come to opposite party No.1 with a dismantled portion of engine o 4-10-2012 so he is not in unaware of this complaint. Eventhough the complainant did not approached opposite partyNo.1 directly with dismantled engine, it is admitted that one Mr.Jinu approached them for repair and replacing some fittings and parts opposite party No.1 has done the work as per the complainant stated by fitter Jinu on 4-10-12 which is sufficient to create the consumer relation between complainant and opposite parties. The issue of territorial jurisdiction does not attract because the complainant resides at West Eleri in Kasaragod District and the route of the bus as per permit is Kanhangad-Payyanur (via) Cheruvathur as per Ext.A2. Opposite party No.2 also admits that he has received Rs.9913/-. Ext.A3 is the estimate given by opposite party No.1 to the complainant on 4-10-2012 for Rs.9750/-. Ext.A4 is another bill issued by Global automobiles on 4-10-2012 for KL-14F 6622 for Rs.40,798/-. Exts A5 & A6 are issued by opposite party No.2 in the name of the complainant on 30-10-2012 is Rs.1663/- and Rs.8250/- respectively. Opposite parties after filing version did not taken any steps to prove their case or disprove the case of the complainant. Opposite parties did not cross-examined the complainant even after allowing 2 adjournments for the same. They failed to produce any documents in favour of them after collecting huge amount from the complainant. Opposite party No.1 could not rectify the defects of the vehicle. Opposite party No.1 repaired the vehicle on 4-10-2012 thereafter the complaint continued and, the complainant was constrained to spend additional amount for repair and replace shows the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. Opposite party in their version stated that they suggested to replace the cylinder block to rectify the defects permanently, there is nothing to prove the same. Opposite party No.2 in their version admitted that inspite of 2nd repair also opposite party No.1 could not rectify the defects hence it is entrusted to opposite party No.2. While perusing complaint, affidavit and documents and version we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite partyNo.1, which caused monetary loss and mental agony to the complainant. The loss and mental agony sustained to the complainant has to be compensated.
Hence the complaint is allowed. Opposite party No.1 is directed to refund Rs.9913/- with Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.Copy of RC. KL-14-F-6622
A2. Copy of stage Carriage Permit
A3. 4-10-12 Copy of Estimate
A4.14-10-2012 Copy of Bills for an amount of Rs.40,798/-.
A5. Copy of bill dt.30-12- 12 for an amount of Rs.1663/-.& 8250/-
A6. Copy of Driving Licence of Abdul Azeez.P.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
