O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: Complainant is the Registered Owner of Royal Enfield Bike bearing Reg.No.KL-3-U-6065. Complainant approached the 1st opposite party several times with the complaints of abnormal noise in back side, changing brake light, for checking brake and curing the defect of shock absorber, silencer, meter cable etc. of his Enfield Bike. But they have not entertained his complaint by saying lame excuses. Finally complainant contacted the service engineer of the 1st opposite party through telephone and as per his advice he entrusted his bike to the 1st opposite party for repairing. After one week, complainant approached the 1st opposite party and they returned the vehicle after repairing. Complainant took a trial run and found that defects was not cured. Moreover, 1st opposite party changed several parts of the vehicle without the consent of the complainant and given a bill of Rs.1707/-. Complainant is forced to pay the bill amount without repairing alleged complaints. Moreover, the service manager misbehaved to the complaint. Complainant returned to his house without taking the vehicle. Finally, on 22.01.2015 the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for taking possession of the vehicle and found that silencer of the vehicle was bended, seat rest, number plate and mudguard were damaged, scratched painting and handle was also bended. Moreover, Bullet is not in a condition to ride. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony. Hence this complaint for getting the bill amount of Rs.1,707/- for rectifying the defects Rs.8,000/- along with cost and compensation of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant.
3. In this case, opposite parties entered appearance and filed their versions with the following contentions. Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The averment in the complaint that the vehicle was entrusted to the opposite parties on 07.01.2015 is false. But the complainant entrusted his vehicle to the service station only on 16.01.2015 alleging certain complaints. Job card was prepared and assured to hand over the vehicle on 20.01.2015. After repairing the vehicle, vehicle handed over to the complainant on 20.01.2015 the assured date. After a test drive complainant satisfied himself that the vehicle was repaired well and he paid the bill amount and taken over the vehicle from the opposite parties. It is baseless to say that the opposite parties forced the complainant to remit the bill amount.
4. It is clearly mentioned in the job card that whatever parts were replaced while on repair. The vehicle was actually involved in an accident and so that the frame assembly is having bend, and which was noticed by the opposite parties and informed the complainant at the time of inspection. Moreover, it was informed by the opposite parties without changing the frame assembly the complaint of the vehicle could not be rectified. The complainant was not at all willing to change the frame assembly.
5. All other allegations regarding the damage happened to the vehicle in the service station is false. Being a service centre opposite parties never wilfully make any damage to the vehicle. Due to the acts of the opposite parties, no damage or defect occurred to the complainant’s vehicle. Hence opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant’s claim. Complainant is the 2nd owner of the vehicle. Disputed vehicle is having more than 3 years old. So complainant is not entitled to get any warranty benefits. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
6. On the basis of the allegation in the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 and C1, B1 to B2(a). After closure of evidence, both sides heard.
8. The Point:- The allegation of the complainant is that his Enfield Bullet Motor Cycle hearing Reg.No.KL-3-U-6065 was entrusted to the opposite party service centre for repairing. But the opposite party replaced certain parts without the consent of the complainant and issued a bill of Rs. 1,707/-. Moreover, the alleged complaints of the vehicle was not cured and more defects happened to the vehicle during the custody of the vehicle in the service station. Hence opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss sustained to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting the bill amount of Rs.1,707/- with cost and compensation.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant examined as PW1 and 2 documents were marked on his side. Exts.A1 and C1. Ext.A1 is the Tax Invoice Rs.1,707/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 20.01.2015. Ext.C1 is the commission report prepared by the AMVI G. Anil Kumar on 15.05.2015.
10. Opposite parties contention is that the defects pointed out at the time of servicing were removed promptly and therefore there was no cause for grievance on the part of the opposite parties after repairment. Complainant has taken a trial run and after fully satisfied he has taken the vehicle. It is a baseless allegation that without the consent of the complainant opposite party changed the parts and charged for the same.
11. Moreover, complainant’s allegation regarding more damages happened to the vehicle, while in the service station is also false allegation and the complainant failed to produce any evidence in this aspect. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount or interest as claimed by the complainant on this aspect.
12. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit along with 3 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.Exts.B1, B2 and B2(a). Ext.B1 is the photocopy of job card dated 16.01.2015. Ext.B2 is the registration details issued by R.T.O., Pathanamthitta No.KL-03-U-6065 in the name of Sherin Sha w.e.f. 05.05.2014. Ext.B2(a) is the registration details of No.KL-3-U-6065 issued by RTO, Pathanamthitta in the name of Saji Abraham w.e.f. 02.08.2011.
13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that complainant entrusted his vehicle to the opposite party service station alleging certain complaints. For the same opposite party prepared a job card and which was marked as Ext.B1, in which 4 complaints were mentioned. In Ext.B1 there is the signature of the complainant also. The major dispute is with regard to the Ext.A1 bill. In normal case after preparing the job card in order to convince the customer they are showing the approximate charge also. From Ext.B1, it is seen that in this case also the same has done. So we cannot believe the complainant’s allegation regarding the payment of bill and replacement of certain parts without his consent.
14. 2nd allegation of the complainant is with regard to the work done by the opposite party’s is not perfect and the defect is still continuing and more defects occurred during the custody. For the allegation the conclusive evidence before the Forum is the C1 report prepared by the AMVI, G. Anilkumar, Pathanamthitta. From the report and Ext.B2 and B2(a) it is seen that complainant is the 2nd owner of the said vehicle and the disputed vehicle is 2011 Model Royal Enfield Bike. Even though, commissioner reported that certain defects are pre-existing due to vehicle’s old age at the same time he reported various defects of the vehicle such as silencer bend. misplacement of seat rest, rear number plate bend, paid scratches and abnormal sound in the centre etc. Being a well reputed Two wheeler workshop, opposite party has the liability to rectify the defects and repairing work properly. But in this case, we have found some latches on the part of the opposite party with regard to the repairing of the vehicle. Even though, opposite party contended that the vehicle met with an accident but there is nothing on record to show that this vehicle had met with an accident as alleged. We are justified in relying the expert report before us. So we are of the view that complaint is partly allowable.
13. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed thereby the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost of the further repair done by complainant along with cost and compensation of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand five hundred only) to the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the amount with cost of 10% till its realization.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of January, 2016.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member – I)
Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Sherin Sha
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Tax Invoice dated 20.01.2015 for Rs.1,707/- issued by the opposite party
to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of job card dated 16.01.2015.
B2 : Photocopy of registration details issued by R.T.O., Pathanamthitta
No.KL-03-U-6065 in the name of Sherin Sha w.e.f. 05.05.2014.
B2(a) : Photocopy of registration details of No.KL-3-U-6065 issued by RTO,
Pathanamthitta in the name of Saji Abraham w.e.f. 02.08.2011.
Court Exhibits:
C1 : Commission Report.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Sherin Sha, Madhura House, Chittoor Road, Pathanamthitta – 689 645. (2) M/s. Marikar (Motors), Near St. Mary’s School,
Pathanamthitta – 689 645.
- Arun, (Service Manager), Marikar (Motors),
Pathanamthitta – 689 645.
- Ani (Service Adviser), Marikar (Motors), Pathanamthitta – 689 645.
- The Stock File.
