ORDER<br /> <br /> Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. The facts of this complaint is as follows: The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.16,500/- to opposite party as charge for gas conversion to the complainant’s vehicle`on 11.7.05. After the gas conversion, the opposite party issued receipt for Rs.10,495/-. For the remaining amount of Rs.6005/-, the opposite party has not issued any receipt. On complainant’s demand for receipt, the opposite party has not given any definite answer for the said amount. The opposite party made to believe the complainant that the vehicle run by gas is profitable than petrol. The capacity of the tank provided by the opposite party is only 28 litre instead of the promised 35 litres. The complainant suffered loss and sufferings due to use of his vehicle after gas conversion and sent a notice narrating his loss and sufferings to opposite party. A reply also with false statements received from the opposite party. As per terms, the complainant has not get any services from the opposite party, which caused both mental and monetary loss to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the excess amount of Rs.6005/- paid by him with compensation of Rs.15,000/- for his loss and mental agony along with the cost of this proceedings from the opposite party. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version raising the following contentions. That the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. But admitted the gas conversion to complainant’s vehicle on 11.7.05 by accepting Rs.16,500/- as charges and issued receipt for the same. They had issued two separate bills. Bill for Rs.10,495/- for the charges of the kit and a bill for Rs.6005/- for labour charge. But complainant has taken only the bill for Rs.10,495/- for the purpose of submitting it before RTO. The other bill for Rs.6005/- for labour charge and documentation charge has not taken from opposite party office due to complainant’s fault. That matter is informed to him in time. <br /> <br /> 4. The opposite party also admits the fact that it is profitable to run vehicle by gas than petrol. Even though, the capacity of gas tank of complainant’s vehicle is 35 litres, they fill only 80% of its capacity, because of safety reasons. The complainant has not clearly states which type of loss and suffering caused to him in this transaction. The complainant never informed of any difficulties caused to him and in the circumstance they are not aware of any difficulties and they have not committed any deficiency of service and they performed well. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. The opposite party’s further contention that now days many agencies germinated in this field and exploiting the public by installing low quality materials at low cost and this complaint may be the result of the inspiration of such agencies. Therefore, the opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. <br /> <br /> 5. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration.<br /> <br /> (1)Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?<br /> (2)Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for in <br /> the complaint?<br /> (3)Relief and Costs?<br /> <br /> 6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him have been marked as Exts.A1 to A10. Ext.A1 is the cash bill of Rs. 16,500/- dated 11.7.05 issued by the opposite party. Ext.A2 is the bill of Rs.10,495/- dated 11.7.05 issued by the opposite party. Ext.A3 series are the receipts (6 in number) for gas filling issued by opposite party from 11.7.05 to 13.10.2005. Ext.A4 is the bill for Rs. 634.90 issued by Sreenarayana Sales and Services, Edappally, Kochi to the complainant on 14.8.05. Ext.A5 is the receipt for Rs.130/- dated 29.8.2005 for the repairing works done by the opposite party. Ext.A6 is the Pollution under Control Certificate. Ext.A7 is the copy of the insurance certificate of complainant’s vehicle. Ext.A8 is the bill dated 5.8.05 for Rs.3,795/- issued by Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Kottayam. Ext.A9 is the photocopy of the reply notice dated 11.11.05 sent by opposite party’s advocate to the complainant. Ext.A10 is the photocopy of the bill amount of Rs.6005/- sent to the complainant along with Ext.A9. <br /> <br /> 7. From the opposite party’s side, no witness was examined or any documents produced. After closure of evidence, both sides heard. <br /> <br /> 8. Point No.1:- The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and the dispute herein is a consumer dispute and hence this case is maintainable before the Forum. <br /> <br /> 9. Point Nos. 2 & 3:- On going through the evidence, it is seen that the opposite party issued Ext.A1 cash receipt and Exts. A2 and A10 bills. Ext.A2 is the bill for the parts used in the conversion amounting to Rs.10,495/-. Ext.A10 is the bill for labour charges and documentation charges of Rs.6005/-. Ext.A1 is the sum total of Ext.A2 and A10. The main dispute is with regard to Ext.A10 bill of Rs.6005/- consists of labour charges and documentation charges. According to the complainant, Ext.A10 bill amount is an amount collected is excess and is illegal. But the complainant fails to adduce any evidence to prove that the opposite party has charged higher labour charges and documentation charges than the prevailing rate. In this context, it cannot be said that the opposite party has charged any excess amount in this transaction. Another dispute is with regard to the capacity of the tank. The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party told the complainant that the tank fitted in the vehicle has a capacity of 32 litres, but it has only 28 litres capacity. In order to prove this complaint , the complainant has produced some bills showing gas filling which are marked Ext.A3 series. But according to opposite party, even though the capacity of the tank is 32 litres. Nobody will fill it up to the maximum capacity due to security reasons. This contention was not challenged by the complainant or disproved by any expert evidence. Apart from this, there is no specific allegation of any deficiency in service against the opposite party.<br /> 10. In the circumstances, we cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant’s contentions are not sustainable and this complaint lacks merits and not allowable.<br /> 11. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.<br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of August, 2008.<br /> <br /> N. Premkumar,<br /> (Member) <br /> <br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) :<br /> <br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : <br /> <br /> Appendix:<br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : P.K. Kuruvilla.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Ext.A1 is the cash bill of Rs. 16,500/- dated 11.7.05 issued by the opposite party.<br /> A2 : The bill for Rs.10,495/- dated 11.7.05 issued by the opposite party.<br /> A3 : The receipts (6 in number) issued by opposite party from 11.7.05 to 13.10.2005. <br /> A4 Bill for Rs. 634.90 issued by Sreenarayana Sales and Services, Edappally, <br /> Kochi to the complainant on 14.8.05.<br /> A5: : The receipt for Rs.130/- dated 29.8.05 issued by the opposite party. <br /> A6: : Pollution Control Certificate.<br /> A7: : Copy of the insurance certificate of complainant’s vehicle. <br /> A8 : Bill dated 5.8.05 for Rs.3,795/- issued by Popular Vehicles and Services <br /> Ltd., Kottayam. <br /> A9 : Photocopy of the reply notice dated 11.11.05 sent by opposite party’s <br /> Advocate to the complainant. <br /> A10 : Photocopy of the bill amount of Rs.6005/- sent by the opposite party to the <br /> complainant. <br />