Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/08/60

C.J.Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager - Opp.Party(s)

23 May 2008

ORDER


IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CDRF,Fort Road,Kasaragod
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/60

C.J.Joseph
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Manager
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. C.J.Joseph

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Manager

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Date of filing : 05-05-08. Date of order : 15-11-08. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.60/08 Dated this, the 15th day of November2008 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER C.J.Joseph, S/o.Joseph, Chengananikkal House, } Complainant Chittarikkal.Po, Kasaragod.Dt. The Manager, Ammas Service Station, } Opposite party V.V. Nagar, Cheruvathur, Kasaragod. O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Case of the complainant C.J. Joseph is that he entrusted his Ace Goods Vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/3799 with opposite party for water service. After water service due to the carelessness on the part of opposite party the vehicle burnt on its way coz of putting waste clothes near the silencer pipe at the time of service. Intimating this incident, the opposite party towed the vehicle to their workshop. The vehicle is not returned back till date after effecting necessary repairs and service. Hence the complaint. 2. Opposite party resists the complaint, according to opposite party due to the delay in payment of advance amount the repair work is delayed. The vehicle was burnt not due to the fire caused by damages on the electronic circuit nor due to the waste clothes put near to the silencer pipe. It is a deliberate attempt of set fire with an ulterior motive to claim insurance. Therefore opposite party orally informed the complainant to lodge a complaint before the police. But complainant expressed his un pleasentness to inform the police. As per complainant’s request opposite party has prepared a list of damaged items and approximate cost of spares and labour. Quotation issued on 30-01-08 for Rs.16027/- for spare parts and Rs.10851/- for labour charges. The complainant submitted the said quotations to the concerned insurance company. On 5-2-08 the insurance surveyor inspected the vehicle and on 6-2-08 job card opened. As per agreement complainant ought to have paid 50% of the then quotation amount to opposite party to procure parts from TATA Motors and to start the work. On 4-3-08 complainant issued lawyer notice to which opposite party sent reply on 12-03-08. After receiving the reply notice complainant issued a cheque dated 25-03-08 for Rs.8000/-and opposite party realised Rs.7898/- as per this cheque on 15-04-08. The inordinate delay in payment of advance caused the delay for effecting the repair work. The complainant did not turn up to release the vehicle after effecting the repairs inspite of repeated reminders. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Complainant filed affidavit instead of examination-in-chief. He was cross-examined by counsel for opposite party. For opposite party K.V. Praveen, Manager of opposite party firm filed affidavit and Ext.B1 to B14 were marked. He was cross-examined by the counsel for complainant as DW1. Both sides were heard and the documents perused. The points which requires consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party or not? And reliefs and cost. 4. The allegations of the complainant is that the vehicle was burned due to putting waste clothes near silencer pipe at the time of service from the service center of opposite party. But to prove this aspect no document is produced by him. No complaint is lodged before the police in respect of the incident. Ext.B2 is the lawyer notice dated 4-3-08 issued at the instruction of the complaint. The said notice do not contain the allegation regarding the cause of fire is that one of putting of waste clothes. So it is clear that this allegation is an after thought of the complainant. Ext. B11 and B12 are notices issued by opposite party to the complainant on 7-4-08 and 17-4-08 respectively asking him to take delivery of vehicle after paying the service cost. 5. In one direction the opposite party contends that the repair of the vehicle was delayed due to the non-payment of advance and the advance payment is received by way of cheque dt. 25-3-08 and the cheque is encashed only on 15-04-08. But in the other way as per Ext.B11 opposite party contends that the service of the above vehicle has been completed on 25-03-08. If that be so, it is not due to the delay in payment of advance that caused delay in effecting repairs to the vehicle. This contradictory statements leads to the conclusion that there was delay on the part of opposite party in effecting the necessary service work. Further it is the case of complainant that even after receipt of Ext.B11 though he approached opposite party to get back the vehicle the repair works were not completed. 6. As per Ext.B11 the total cost of service shown as Rs.24517/- and the complainant already paid Rs.8000/-. Definitely the opposite party is entitled for the balance due to them towards their repair and service charges and the complainant as PW1 testified that he is liable to pay the service charges due to opposite party. Therefore we allow the complaint and the opposite party is directed to return the vehicle to complainant after effecting the repair and service on payment of Rs.16,517/- towards the balance of repair and service charges. Opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation due to the delay in effecting the necessary repair work to the vehicle of the complainant along with a cost of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. B1. Job Card. B2. 4-3-08 copy of lawyer notice. B3. 11-3-08 reply notice. B4. Certificate issued by Indian Overseas Bank, Nileshwar Branch. B5. Job card B6.(a) to B6(k) series photographs B7.Quotation B8.Cash bill. B9.Additional quotation B10.Postal acknowledgement B11.9-4-08 letter sent by OP to complainant. B12.17-4-08 letter sent by OP to complainant B13. Postal acknowledgement B14.Postal receipt PW1. C.J. Joseph DW1. Praveen.K.V. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT




......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi