The complaint is regarding deficiency in service of opposite parties in repairing the vehicle of complaint. The averments in the complaint are as follows.
The complainant had purchased Royal Enfield Bullet from 1st opposite party for Rs. 1,29,826/-(Rupees One lakh twenty nine thousand eight hundred and twenty six only) for his son named Ijas Ahammed . The vehicle was purchased on 26-05-2017. On 06-03-2018 it met with an accident and complainant took the vehicle to the 1stopposite
party on 08-03-2018. The tank of the vehicle was badly affected and indicators are broken in the incident. The engine was intact and there was no difficulties in running the vehicle except the damage caused to tank and indicators. The complainant was directed to come after one week. Thus, complainant reached after one week. Even at that time, the vehicle had not been repaired. More over when complainant asked about this he was ridiculed by 2nd opposite party who was in charge of insurance. Again complainant reached the showroom on 28-03-2018 that is after 20 days of the incident. But complainant was directed to come after one week. Though complaint was made before 1st opposite party, he did not take it seriously. Though complainant asked for a spare vehicle that was also denied. The vehicle was given back after repairing on 06-04-2018. He was directed to pay Rs. 2711/-(Two thousand seven hundred and eleven only). The repairing work done by opposite party was not satisfactory. Thus, complainant approached another workshop for completing the repair works. At the time of returning the vehicle complainant noticed rust and scratches on different parts of the vehicle and that is why he entrusted the vehicle to another workshop for repairing . This shows the deficiency in service of the opposite party. So complainant requested for a compensation of Rs. 55,000/-(Rupees Fifty five thousand only).
The opposite parties filed version with the following contentions. The complainant has no locus-standi for filing the complaint. It is true that complainant’s son had purchased Royal Enfield bullet from the showroom of the opposite party on 26-05-2017 and all required services were given to him. It is true that the vehicle had
been taken to the opposite parties on 08-03-2018 for repairing of the vehicle since it had met with an accident on 06-03-2018. For claiming insurance amount these opposite parties directed the complainant to bring the original owner of the vehicle and procure his signature on the claim form. On 14-03-2018 the original owner of the bike came there and signed all necessary papers. The opposite parties had completed the repairing work on 30-03-2018, but delay was caused in getting confirmation from insurance company. That is why the delay was caused in returning the vehicle. The delay was caused by the insurance company and thus Insurance company is to be impleadded in this case. The manufacturer and the person who conducted repairing work shall be impleaded in this case. The opposite parties never offered complainant that the vehicle could be returned on a particular day. The complainant was not ridiculed as claimed. All the required repairing works are carried out by the opposite parties and thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties . The complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed.
Complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and Ext. A1 to A5 are marked. Points arise for consideration.
- Whether complainant has locus- stand to file the complaint.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
- Whether complainant is entitled to any compensation as claimed .
- Reliefs and cost.
Point No.1 to 3
The first contention taken by opposite parties is that the complainant is not the consumer and thus he has no locus-standi to file this complaint. The consumer , according to opposite parties is Ijas Ahammed who is the son of complainant. It is specifically asserted by complainant in the complaint that the vehicle was purchased by him for and on behalf of his son Ijas Ahammed and when the vehicle was damaged in the accident it was taken to the opposite parties for repairing by himself. From the averments of both parties, it is seen that the disputed transaction was done between the complainant and opposite parties. It is true that the vehicle is in the name of the son of complainant. That alone is not the criterion for ascertaining the identity of the consumer. When the complainant asserts that, the vehicle was purchased by him and it was taken to opposite parties for repairing works by himself, he can be treated as the consumer. The opposite parties also did not raise any dispute regarding those facts. So we find no infirmity in filing the complaint by the complainant and complaint cannot be rejected on hyper technical reasons.
The grievance of the complainant is that after accident when he took the vehicle to opposite party for repairing they mocked at him .More over they took about one month for returning the vehicle back after repairing . Besides the repairing work was done in a negligent manner and paint of the tank was found erased or faded on many parts and rust was also noticed on the vehicle. Apart from the oral testimony of complainant no other evidence is available to prove these allegations. Complainant
also asserted that after getting back the vehicle from the opposite parties, he was forced to approach another workshop for completing the repairing work . To prove the involvement of other mechanic in repairing the bike, complainant produced Ext. A3 bill obtained from one Wins Auto Agencies. It is strange to note that this receipt which is issued in the name of the son of complainant was dated 11-08-2018 . The vehicle was taken back by the complainant from opposite parties on 06-04-2018 . So on the basis of Ext. A3 it cannot be concluded that complainant entrusted the vehicle to another work shop immediately after getting back the vehicle from opposite parties . Realizing the long gap between Ext. A2 bill obtained from opposite parties dated 06-04-2018 and Ext.A3 receipt obtained from another work shop which is dated 11-08-2018 , complainant produced a letter said to have been issued by the other work shop and that was marked as Ext.A4. Ext.A4 is dated 31-08-2018. There, one Sakkeer has written that the bullet No.KL- 65- J- 6657 had been repaired in his work shop on 08-04-2018 and the bill amount was Rs. 610/-(Rupees Six hundred and Ten only) and by mistakes the date was wrongly noted therein . But at the same time, he produced another bill dated 08-04-2018 issued by the same work shop but that was not marked . He did not explain under what circumstances this receipt was issued after repairing even after issuing Ext. A4. The amount shown in Ext.A3 and in the un marked document are same. If the document which is not marked was the real receipt then why the work shop person named Sakeer issued a letter which is marked as Ext.A4 dated 31-08-2018. From Ext. A3 and A4 it is made clear that the receipt which is
produced by complainant and omitted to mark purposefully or accidently is a fake receipt. Hence we find no reason to believe that the opposite party failed to do required repairing work.
From the averments of the both parties the only factor evolved is the delay in completing the repairing work. Admittedly the vehicle was entrusted to the opposite parties for repairing on 08-03-2018. According to opposite parties, there is no delay in returning the vehicle after repairing. Admittedly the vehicle was returned on 06-04-2018. That means about one month the vehicle was in the custody of opposite party. It is stated by opposite party in the version that they had told complainant that for completing the repairing work 20 days time would be taken . But in the affidavits, it is stated that they have not told the complainant regarding the time taken for repairing. Thus the admission of the opposite party in the version is given a go-bye in the affidavit. Still the opposite party revealed in the version as well as in the affidavit that on 30-03-2018 itself the repairing work had been completed. But delay caused to return the vehicle was due to the delay in getting insurance papers . According to opposite party only on 14-03-2018 the insurance papers had been entrusted to them and the confirmation from the insurance company was delayed and that is why delay was caused to return the vehicle. But to prove those aspects no documents were produced by opposite party . More over even though insurance papers were delayed they could have revealed to the complainant regarding the cause of delay. It is clear from the averments of the complainant that, he went to the opposite party on many occasions for the vehicle. Still the opposite parties never disclosed to him that the work had been over and it would be returned when the confirmation from the insurance company is received or when entire amount is paid by complainant. On the other hand they took a stand in the version that they never told complainant that the vehicle could be returned on as particular day. Here even after completing the repairing work, they failed to intimate the complainant regarding that. That shows deficiency in service of the opposite parties.
Though complainant requested for compensation for defective repairing and delay in completing the repairing work, as found above evidence is not available to prove that the repairing done by opposite parties was defective. At the same time there was delay in entrusting the vehicle to complainant and no justification is found on the side of opposite party for their failure in intimating the complainant the possible date of completion of repairing work. More over even after completing the repairing work they did not entrust the vehicle to the complaint. Hence opposite parties are liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 10000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to complainant. Points are decided accordingly.
Point No.4
On the basis of the findings on the above points we allow this complaint partly as follows.
- opposite party is liable to pay Rs.10,000 /-(Rupees Ten thousand only)to complainant for the delay in completing the repairing work of the motor bike.
- The prayer of complainant for compensation for defective repairing work of opposite party is rejected.
- The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall pay the amount awarded above within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing whichthey shall pay the amount with interest atthe rate of 12 % per annumfrom the date of complaint till realization.
Dated this 31st day of December, 2018.
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A5
Ext.A1 : Copy of Cash Bill .
Ext.A2 :Copy of Receipt dated 06-04-2018.
Ext A3 :Copy of receipt from work shop(Wins Auto Agencies) dated 11-08-2018.
Ext A4 :Copy of Letter dated 31-08-2018.
Ext A5 : Copy of Complaint.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
