BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 50/2005 Filed on 10.02.2005

Dated : 30.04.2009

Complainant:

A. Alexander, A.J. Nivas, Pulluvila, Erayammanthura Purayidom, Karumkulam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. R. Kunjukrishnan Potti)

Opposite party:

The Managing Partner, A.J. Automobiles & Engineering Works, SSI Reg. No. 90/10/15440, 42/P, Industrial Development Area, Kochuveli, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. U. Abdul Shukoor)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 09.01.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been heard on 17.03.2009, the Forum on 30.04.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

The allegations in the complaint are as follows: The complainant had purchased a bus Chasis Tata 407 and had invited the intending builders for body building. Accordingly the opposite party agreed to build the body for Rs. 1,85,000/-, after negotiation and agreed to deliver the vehicle before 15.12.2004. The opposite party even after the receipt of Rs. 1,30,000/- had not completed the work of body building. The vehicle was purchased by way of finance. On account of the default, negligence and deficiency in service the complainant could not make use of the vehicle, couldn't repay the debts incurred for purchasing the vehicle and to earn any profit out of it and on account of the failure to repay the instalment of loan amount the complainant is forced to pay not only the agreed interest but also penal interest. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievances.

The opposite party remains exparte.

The complainant, PW1, has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P7. PW1 has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.

The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?

Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant as PW1 has deposed that after the filing of the complaint, the opposite party has returned the vehicle after completing the body building and hence his claim has been limited to compensation only. The main allegation in the complaint is that, the opposite party had not returned the vehicle entrusted to them by the complainant, for building body of the same. Even after acceptance of Rs. 1,30,000/- by the opposite party towards the same, the work has not been completed and left half way which according to the complainant is wilful and deliberate default and negligence in rendering service on the part of the opposite party.

The specification-cum-quotation for construction of mini bus body over Tata 407 bus given to the complainant by the opposite party has been marked as Ext. P1. The payment of Rs. 1,30,000/- by the complainant to the opposite party on different dates has been proved by Exts. P1 to P3. The complainant has pleaded that even after the acceptance of the said amount, the opposite party never cared to finish the work and return the vehicle. The opposite party remains exparte and as they have not filed their version nor contested the case, the reason for the delay has not been brought before this Forum with corroborative evidence. In the absence of the same, this Forum come to the conclusion that, inspite of payment of Rs. 1,30,000/- the non-completion of the work by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and negligence for which the complainant has to be compensated.

The complainant has pleaded that if the body building was completed in time and the vehicle was put on the road, the complainant could have earned at least a minimum of Rs. 10,000/- per day after deducting all expenses. But the complainant has failed to establish and prove the said alleged loss . The delay would have obviously caused loss to the complainant, but to what extend has not been brought out in evidence. The complainant has further pleaded that the failure to repay the instalment of loan amount forced him to pay not only the agreed interest but also penal interest and the action of the opposite party has caused much mental agony, pain and sufferings to the complainant. Taking into consideration all the above facts, circumstances and in the light of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the complainant has to be compensated for the negligent act and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, for which an amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be proper along with a cost of Rs. 2500/-.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant with a cost of Rs. 2,500/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12%.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30^th April 2009.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

O.P. No. 50/2005

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Alexander

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of quotation dated 18.10.2004 with endorsement of

receipt of Rs. 50,000/-.

P2 - Copy of cash receipt dated 16.11.2004 for Rs. 50,000/-.

P3 - Copy of cash receipt dated 21.12.2004 for Rs. 30,000/-.

P4 - Copy of advocate notice dated 16.12.2004

P5 - Copy of repayment schedule

P6 - Copy of repayment schedule

P7 - Copy of letter dated 09.02.2005 issued by Ashok Leyland

Finance.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT