By Sri. Mohammed Mustafa Koothradan, Member

1. Facts of the complaint.

The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle KL-10D 7733. On 12-10-2007 the complainant produced his vehicle before the opposite party for change the brake pad. As per the advice of the opposite party the complainant entrusted the vehicle in the garage of opposite party at 10 A.M. and paid Rs.200/- as advance. After a short period he got a phone call from opposite party stating that the vehicle met an accident and damaged. The accident occurred due to the negligent of opposite party's mechanic who drive the vehicle at the time of accident. The complainant asked a spare vehicle for his daily use and opposite party denied. So the complainant hired vehicle for his use. On 22-10-2007 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party and 26-10-2007 the opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant without proper repair. The behaviour of opposite party to the complainant was very bad and ill-treated manner. So the complainant prays for the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) and litigation expense Rs.2,000/- from opposite party.

2. The opposite party filed version and admitted that the complainant had brought the vehicle for change the brake pad. The opposite party offered to release the vehicle in the evening. Opposite party changed the brake pad and took for a trial. At the time of trial the vehicle met with an accident and damaged in the back side of the vehicle. The same was intimated to the complainant through phone. Then the driver of the complainant was came in the accident spot . The opposite party asked for a permission to register a crime. But the complainant was not ready to register a crime. Then clearing all damages the opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant. The opposite party charged the price of brake pad and Service charge of the brake pad only. The accidental expense was not charged. Opposite party was taken a 14 days for delivering the vehicle. It was minimum time for repair and delivered the vehicle. So the opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the complainant. So the opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with cost in favour of opposite party.

3. Both party filed affidavit for the evidence and Ext.A1 to A5 marked on the side of complainant. There is no document marked on the side of opposite party.

4. In this matter the following points may be consider:-

(i) There is any deficiency of service on the side of opposite party.

(ii) If so what is the order and cost.

5. Point(i):-

According to complainant he entrusted his Santro car to opposite party for the purpose of changing the brake pad. The vehicle met with an accident while in the custody of opposite party. Complainant requested opposite party to provide a spare vehicle for his temporary use, but opposite party did not ready to give spare vehicle to the complainant. The complainant alleges that to the failure to provide a spare vehicle he had to hire vehicle for 14 days for his use and this incurred his expense. He is also aggrieved that the vehicle was delivered without proper repair and that opposite party failed to adjust the amount of Rs.200/- paid in advance towards the repair charge. It is submitted by complainant that opposite party behaved in a rude and discourteous manner besides showing a teasing approach to the grievance of the complainant.

6. Against this it was submitted by opposite party that the accident occurred when the vehicle was taken by the employee of opposite party to check the brake pad and test the brake efficiency. Though the accident was immediately informed to the complainant, he did not co-operate to register a First Information Report and hence opposite party could not register the First Information Report. That it is not possible for opposite party to arrange a spare vehicle to customers always. That the vehicle was completely repaired within the shortest possible time of 14 days. The charge for changing brake pad done was collected from the complainant. The expense for repairs other than change of brake pad was shouldered by opposite party. Opposite party vehemently denies ill-treated the complainant.

7. Facts and circumstances of this case reveals that complainant is more aggrieved by the act of opposite party in refusing to provide a spare vehicle and treating his grievance in a teasing and abusive manner. We are unable to accept the contention of complainant that the failure to provide a spare vehicle as deficiency on the part of opposite party. Complainant has no vested right to claim a spare vehicle and such acts are usually done by vehicle repairs only as a gestar of courtesy and good will. So also the contention that opposite party did not repair the vehicle properly is not established by any cogent evidence. Complainant through relies upon Ext.A5 Survey report, this document does not show that vehicle have any defects even after repair. There is no evidence that complainant paid Rs.200/- as advance for repair charges and so the contention that opposite party failed to adjust this amount is also untenable. In our view, if the complainant has suffered discourteous attitude from the side of opposite party, it is definitely a matter to be set right. Traders and service providers have to be consumers sensitive. Though opposite party denies any such ill-treated we consider that a person would not came before the Forum with such a litigation unless he has felt humiliated and has suffered much mental anguish. We hold that the case of complainant that opposite party behaved in a rude manner is probable, and amount to deficiency in service.

8. Point (ii):-

This case brings to light the lack of customer loyalty on the part of service providers, customer loyalty is all about customers coming back to the same service provider for future needs and transactions. For imparting qualitative and perfect service the service provider has to ensure that the consumer is treated with dignity. Denial of sensitivity to grievance of the consumer is denial of proper service.

9. We consider that an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the mental agony, inconveniences and hardships suffered by complainant would meet the ends of justice and will help to set correct the quality of service provided by opposite party.

10. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and order opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainant along with the cost of Rs.500/- Rupees five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Dated this 6th day of December, 2008.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5

Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the Certificate of Registration dated, 06-01-2003

regarding complainant's vehicle No.KL10 P-7733.

Ext.A2 : Registered lawyer notice dated, 22-10-2007 issued by complainant's

counsel to opposite party.

Ext.A3 : Postal acknowledgement card received from opposite party to

complainant's counsel.

Ext.A4 : Cash/Credit Invoice for Rs.1,192/- from opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A5 : Survey report with survey fee bill issued by Insurance Surveyor, Manjeri

to complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER