Date of filing : 16-09-2008
Date of order : 04-01-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.171/2008
Dated this, the 4th day of January 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Abdul Nazir, } Complainant
S/o.S.A. Khairunnisa,
R/at Seyyed Manzil,
Anangoor in Kasaragod Kasaba village
Po.Kasaragod, 671121.
(Adv. M.Mahesh, Kasaragod.)
1. Kalpaka Motors, N.A. Enclave, } Opposite parties
Vidyangar, 671123, Kasaragod.
2. Kalpaka Motors,
Vaikom Muhammad Basheer Road,
Calicut.1.
(Adv. Shrikanta Shetty.K, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
This complaint is again came up for our consideration in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Appellete Authority in its judgment in Appeal No.163/11 dated 3-9-2011. As per that Judgment the Hon’ble State Commission remitted back the matter for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both sides to evidence further evidence if so they desire. The Hon’ble State Commission posted the case to 30-09-2011. The State Commission further directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of order.
2. Accordingly complaint is again taken up on 30-09-2011. On that day the opposite parties represented in compliance with the order of Hon’ble State Commission. On 30-09-2011 notice was ordered to complainant. On the next posting date complainant and opposite party represented and it is posted for evidence of both sides. On the subsequent posting day counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant has no further evidence. Though the case adjourned for opposite parties evidence subsequently the opposite parties neither turn up nor adduced any evidence. It appeared that they are not desired to adduce any evidence. Hence after hearing the learned counsel for complainant the case is taken for orders.
3. The Hon’ble State Commission in it’s judgment has observed that documents i.e. a job card and a tax invoice/cash credit invoice produced by the opposite parties has not been taken in to consideration. Though the opposite parties remained absent and did not adduce any evidence, all documents produced by them were once again considered for disposing this case.
4. The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant entrusted his Mahindra Alfa Champion Goods Carrier Vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/D 7408 with opposite party No.1 for effecting some minor repairs on 01-01-2008. Opposite party No.1 inspected the vehicle and estimated the cost of repairs including cost of spare parts as `2500/-. Opposite party No.1 promised to return the vehicle on 03-01-2008. But on 03-01-08 when the complainant approached opposite party No.1 to take back the vehicle opposite party No.1 demanded `11,000/- as repair charges. Feeling suspicious, in the huge difference in repair charges, on enquiries made by the complainant opposite party No.1 told that they used some more spare parts which they could not notice at the time of earlier examination. Further complainant also noticed that the opposite party No.1 has removed some original valuable spare parts from the aforesaid vehicle and have replaced old and condemned spare parts. Since the complainant was not happy with the vague reply of the opposite party No.1 he did not pay the money as demanded by them but was ready to pay `2500/- as estimated by opposite party No.1 at the time of entrustment. But opposite party No.1 refused to deliver the vehicle and told that if the complainant did not pay `11,000/- then they will have to remove the spare parts alleged to have been fitted by them to the engine of the aforesaid vehicle. At that time complainant told opposite party No.1 that they had not informed him that the servicing of the vehicle will involve the alleged repairing of engine nor had he asked opposite party No.1 to carry out engine repair. Thus there was a dispute between the complainant and opposite party No.1 and the complainant had returned without taking delivery of the vehicle. Therefore the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. According to complainant the vehicle was worth `75,000/- at the time of entrustment of the vehicle. Though a lawyer notice was issued by complainant dt.12-02-2008. Opposite party sent a false reply through their counsel on 24-04-08. Hence the complaint.
5. The opposite parties filed version. They admits the entrustment of the vehicle for repair. It was entrusted with the complaints of less pulling, low mileage and starting trouble and the complainant requested through checkup and repair and replacement of every such parts which caused the trouble. The technician/mechanic after primary checkup noted the defects and the job card No.1281 dated 3-1-2008 is prepared and estimated at `11,000/- in presence of the complainant. But when the repair and service work was in progress, the complainant came to opposite party No.1 and offered that he will pay only `2000/- initially and balance on credit basis. The opposite party No.1 did not agree for this arrangement. For not giving credit facility the complainant annoyed and told that he will teach a lesson and told that he wanted the vehicle in it’s initial condition while entrusted to them. But by that time the opposite party incurred labour charges of the work done till that day and bringing the vehicle to it’s former condition as per the request of the complainant required `2865/-. Thereafter complainant never came inspite of telephone intimations, registered letter etc. The vehicle is still with opposite party No.1 due to non co-operation and adamant attitude of the complainant. The allegation that the original spare parts were replaced with old condemned spare parts is denied. There is no deficiency in service on their service the complaint is liable to be dismissed accordingly to opposite parties.
6. Counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant has no further evidence and hence his proof affidavit filed in earlier proceedings as well as the Exts A1 & A2 are considered. Though opposite parties remained absent. We considered their documents and marked it as Exts B1 to B5.
7. Ext.A1 is the copy of lawyer notice dated 11-02-2008 issued at the instance of the complainant to opposite parties. Ext. A2 is the reply notice dated 24-04-2008.
8. Ext.B1 is the undelivered returned registered postal article issued by opposite partyNo.1 to complainant.Ext.B2 is the photocopy of letter dated 01-02-2008 issued by opposite party No.1 to complainant. Ext.B3 is the copy of job card dated 03-01-2008 evidencing the entrustment of KL-14/D 7408 with opposite parties for repair. Ext.B4 is the copy of tax invoice-Cash/Credit dated 31-01-2008 of 1st opposite party. Ext.B5 is the copy of labour bill dated 31-01-2008 of 1st opposite party.
9. The case of the complainant is that he entrusted the vehicle with opposite parties on 1-1-2008 and the opposite party No.1 estimated the repair charge as `2500/-. But when approached opposite party on 3-1-2008 they demanded `11,000/- towards repair charges. Feeling vagueness in the explanation given by opposite party No.1 for such a big difference in the repair charges he returned without taking back the vehicle. According to opposite party No.1 when the repair work was in progress, the complainant came to opposite party No.1 and offered to pay only `2,000/- initially and the balance on credit basis for which they were not agreed. Hence the complainant became annoyed and told them that he will teach them a lesson and he wanted his vehicle in it’s initial position. But by that time the opposite party No.1 incurred labour charges of the work done till that day and that charge was `2,865/-. Thereafter the complainant never approached them inspite of the telephone call and registered letter. To substantiate this contention opposite party No.1 produced the undelivered registered letter dated 9-2-2008 with it’s postal cover opened on one side with the copy of the said letter dated 9-2-2008 that is Ext.B1. In the said letter the works manager of opposite party No.1 states that the vehicle entrusted with them for repair against their job No.1281 dated 3-01-08 has completed service and repairing and the vehicle was made ready for delivery on 31-01-08. They had intimated the readiness of the vehicle to him over telephonic. However no attempts were made from his part to take delivery of the vehicle within 7 days of receipt of the said letter after paying the repair and maintenance charges of `.2865 vide their bill No.2131,117 . Along with this letter opposite party also produced the copy of the job card No.1281 dated 3-01-08 in which the estimated repair charges is shown as `11,500/- (Ext.B3) and copy of the Tax invoice dated 31-1-08 for `1995/- towards the charges for the spare parts (Ext.B4) and Labour bill dated 31-1-08 for `870/-.(Ext.B5)
10. The contention of opposite parties in the version is totally contradictory to their Ext.B1 letter dated 9-2-2008 issued to the complainant. In Ext.B1 it is informed that the service and repair work is completed as on 3-1-08 and the total repair charges for the said repair and maintenance is `2,865/-. Whereas in the Ext.B3 the estimated repair charge is shown as `11,500/-. In Ext.B3 it is noted that the engine overhauling is done according to old condition as per customer request. That shows that the said job card is filled after the alleged scuffle between the complainant and opposite party No.1. It is further shown in the job card that the estimated amount is `.11,500 + 10%.
11. So as contended by opposite party No.1 if the complainant was annoyed on non-providing the credit facility and told opposite party No.1 that he would teach a lesson to opposite party No.1, then why should the opposite party No.1 completed the work as on 31-1-08 after effecting full repair and service for `2,865/- instead of the non-receipt of the estimated cost of `.11,500/- . This statement is not believable and it cannot be expected from prudent people like opposite parties. Moreover, as per the version `.2865/- required for bringing the vehicle to it’s former condition as per the request of the complainant. But in Ext.A2 letter dated 7-2-08 it is stated that `2865/- is the cost of repair charges for the job entrusted as per the job card. These inconsistent statements itself shows that the opposite parties have no consistent defense and hence their contentions are wholly unacceptable.
12. The complainant entrusted his vehicle for some minor repair on 01-01-08 for which the estimated cost of repair as told by opposite parties was `.2500/-. But opposite parties claimed `11,000/- towards repair charges. No documents or bills produced by opposite parties to show the basis for demanding `11500/-. It is apparent that Opposite parties were trying to exploit the ignorance of a consumer for their unjust enrichment. Had the complainant was not vigilant then he should have paid the said amount of `11,000/- which is claimed without any bonafides or basis. This is nothing but an unscrupulous exploitation of a consumer and it is a very heinous kind of deficiency in service.
As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Charansing V. Healing Touch Hospital (reported in 2000 (7) SCC 668) compensation has to be awarded not only to recompense the consumer but it should also intended to make a qualitative change in the minds of service provider.
13. Every one who owns a motor vehicle has to take it for servicing and repairs on occasion. Most of the vehicle owners/customers are quite unaware about the nature of defects of their vehicle and the necessary repairs to be effected and the cost required for the spare parts and labour charges. Make use of this ignorance some repair centres including authorized repair centres are exploiting their customers in several ways providing bitter experiences. As a result the consumer suffers heavy losses.
14. It is pertinent to note that in our country the customer enjoys no right when he entrusts his motor vehicle for repair. In most cases it is seen that the service centres (mostly authorized service centres) take the vehicle to their garage and the vehicle owner did not even permit to enter or watch the repairs done to his vehicle. It is also rampant causing undue delay than promised in returning the vehicle after repair. This often leads to unscrupulous exploitation of the customers and also sufferings to them. The customer should have the following rights who gives vehicle for repair.
a) Ask for a written estimate
b) Ask for a copy of job card showing the date of entrustment and expected date of
delivery after repair
c) Approve any repairs before they are made
d) Approve any repair charges that exceed the written estimate.
e) Have the replaced spare parts returned to him
f) Get an invoice dealing the work (parts and labour) done to the vehicle
g) Refuse to pay any charges exceeding 10% of the written estimate that the
customer did not previously approve.
h) To get an opportunity to enter the workshop & watch the repairing works to his
vehicle during the working hours of repair centre including for the free services
offered by the manufacturer.
15. Similarly the repairer or service centre should post a sign board listing the consumers rights in a place where consumers can see it. The sign board should provide the following informations.
a) Customers right to request a written estimate and to give written or oral
approval before work begins
b) customers written or oral permission is required before work beyond what
is stated in the written estimate begins.
c) Customer must consent to any work that amounts to more than 10% of the
original or additional work
d) The repairer must obtain written authorization even if the customer does not
request for an estimate.
e) The repairer must issue copy of the job card/work order showing the date of
entrustment of vehicle and expected date of delivery
f) Customers right to request the return of all replaced spare parts before work
begins on the vehicle, unless parts have to be returned to a manufacturer or
distributor under a warranty
g) Customers right to receive an invoice.
h) Customers right to refuse to pay for any unauthorized work
i) Customers right entry in to the garage or service centre and watch the
repair works of his vehicle.
16. If aforesaid rights of the customers are established then the exploitation of the customers by the vehicle repairer/service centres can be curtailed to a great extent.
In the result complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to return the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/D 7408 to the complainant in it’s original condition as on 01-01-2008. Opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of `50,000/- by way of compensation together with a cost of `4,000/-. Opposite parties 1 & 2 are further directed to fix a sign in a conspicuous place of their service centre showing the customers rights mentioned in paragraph 15 (a) to (i) of this order. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which opposite parties shall be further liable to pay interest also for `50,000/- @ 9% from the date of complaint till payment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 11-02-2008 Copy of lawyer notice.
A2. 24-04-2008 Reply notice
B1. Returned cover
B2. 09-02-2008 Photocopy of letter sent by ops to complainant.
B3. Photocopy of Job card
B4. Photocopy of Tax-invoice-cash/credit.
B5. Photocopy of Labour Bill cash/credit
PW1. T.M. Abdul Nazir
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
