IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 28^th  day of October, 2010.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)

N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C. No. 66/2010 (Filed on 03.05.2010)

Between:

Mathew Philip,

Prop. M/s. Air Sales Corporation,

23, MIG Jawahar Nagar Dewas,

Madhya Pradesh, residing at

Thadiveettil House,

Chellackadu P.O., Ranni.

(By Adv. Reno Zac Vadekathara)                                       ....  Complainant.

And:

Managing Director,

Auto Palace,

New Generation Car Service-

Centre, New Upasana Talkies,

Angadi P.O., Ranni Taluk,

Pathanamthitta.                                                           ....  Opposite parties.

ORDER

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The complainant’s case is that he is doing business at Madhya Pradesh and his native place is Ranni.  He usually visits his native place.  The complainant owns a 2002 model Ford Ikon car with registration No.MH-04/BK-5625.  While so he came to Ranni and visited Angadi, Ranni Town on 25.09.2009 and during that time, his Ikon car shows some complaint and he searched for a mechanic for its maintenance and he found the opposite party.  The complainant described the problems regarding the car to the opposite party who had conducted a preliminary checking of the car and advised the complainant to purchase some spare parts for repairing the vehicle.  He also assured the complainant that the car will be repaired within 2 days.  On the assurance of the opposite party, the complainant purchased the required spare parts and delivered to the opposite party.

                    3.  Despite the assurance of the opposite party, he had returned the car after a month after repairs inspite of his daily visit to the workshop.  Because of the delay in repairing the car, the complainant was constrained to stay at Ranni for one month.  At the time of delivering the car, the opposite party also given a bill for ` 17,915 for the repairing.  The complainant was compelled to pay the said amount and took the vehicle from the work shop.  After 2 days of its delivery, the vehicle again showed the same complaints for which the car was given for repairing to the opposite party.  So he showed his car to another mechanic who had done certain temporary repairing works and opined that the earlier repairs were defective and advised the complainant to take the vehicle to any other major workshop for further repairs.  Accordingly, the complainant took the car to Dewas.  At Dewas, he had spent ` 10,000 for the repairs.  The above said acts of the opposite party is a deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  So the complainant caused a legal notice on 06.01.2010 demanding to pay a sum of  ` 50,000 as compensation for the mental agony and other distress of the complainant along with  ` 1,000 for the notice charges which was received by the opposite party on 08.01.2010.  But there is no response from the opposite party.  Hence this complaint for the realisation of the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party as repairing charges with 12% interest per annum along with compensation of ` 36,000 under various heads.

                   4. In this case, though the opposite party entered appearance before this Forum, he had not filed his version.  Hence opposite party was declared as exparte.

                   5. On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                   6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed in lieu of the chief examination by the complainant and Exts.A1 to A3.  After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.

                   7. The Point:  The allegation against the opposite party is that the repair works done by the opposite party to the complainant’s vehicle is defective and the vehicle was kept in the work shop for about one month inspite of the assurance given by the opposite party to the complainant that the vehicle will be returned within 2 days after its repairs.  Due to the defective repairs and the delay in returning the vehicle caused financial loss and other inconveniences to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the same.

                   8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit narrating his case in lieu of his chief examination along with 3 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3.  Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the bill dated 29.10.2009 for ` 17,915 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the legal notice dated 06.01.2010 issued for the complainant in the name of the opposite party.  Ext.A3 is the postal acknowledgment card dated 08.01.2010 of Ext.A2 legal notice.

                   9. On the basis of the contentions of the complainant, we have gone through the available materials on record and found that the complainant had given his car to the opposite party for repairs and the opposite party collected ` 17,000 from the complainant for the repairing works undertaken by the opposite party.  According to the complainant, the repairs carried out by the opposite party is defective and the opposite party also      delayed the delivery of the vehicle irrespective of his assurance to return the vehicle within 2 days after its repairs.  Because of the above said reasons, the complainant was compelled to spend ` 10,000 more for further repairs of his vehicle and he had lost his time for about one month.  But the said allegations are not proved with cogent evidence including expert evidence by the complainant.  Hence we could not find any deficiency or negligence from the part of the opposite party in that respect.  However, as per Ext.A1 bill, it is seen that the vehicle was returned after one month as alleged by the complainant.  The delay in delivering the vehicle ‘is no doubt’ a deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party and hence the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the said deficiency.  Therefore, this complaint can be allowed partly.

                   10. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part, thereby the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant along with cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the whole amount ordered herein above with 9% interest per annum from today till the whole realisation.

                   Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of October, 2010.

                                                                                                             (Sd/-)

                                                                                                Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                                   (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)     :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)       :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:  

A1     :         Photocopy of the bill dated 29.10.2009 for ` 17,915 issued by the

                    opposite party in the name of the complainant.

A2     :         Photocopy of the legal notice dated 06.01.2010 issued for the

                     complainant in the name of the opposite party.

A3     :         Postal acknowledgment card dated 08.01.2010 of Ext.A2 legal   

                    notice.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil.

                                                                                      (By Order)

                                                                                 Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Mathew Philip, Thadiveettil House, Chellackadu P.O., Ranni.

                  (2) Managing Director, Auto Palace, New Generation Car 

                        Service Centre, New Upasana Talkies, Angadi P.O., Ranni 

                        Taluk, Pathanamthitta.

                  (3) The Stock File.