IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.117/2011 (Filed on 06.05.2011)
Between:
N. Muraleedharan,
Palazhi House,
Cheenamputhoor,
Kavathikulam,
Kottackal P.O., Malappuram Dist. … Complainant.
(By Adv. S. Lathika)
And:
1. Mathew George, Director,
Geo Quadra Wheels Pvt. Ltd.,
Mallassery Junction,
Kumbazha P.O.,
Pathanamthitta.
2. Joe, Sales Manager,
Geo Quadra Wheels Pvt. Ltd.,
Mallassery Junction,
Kumbazha P.O.,
Pathanamthitta.
3 Nublin,
Geo Quadra Wheels Pvt. Ltd.,
Mallassery Junction,
Kumbazha P.O.,
Pathanamthitta. … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. V.R. Soji)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is as follows: Complainant is a businessman from Malappuram District. 1st opposite party is the Director, 2nd opposite party is the Sales Manager and 3rd opposite party is an employee of Geo Quadra Wheels Pvt. Ltd. Complainant is the owner of a Sonata Hyundai bearing Reg.No.M.H.16E 5385, which is purchased from Mumbai in the year 2010. For repainting and repairing the side mirror, running board, beeding etc. it was given to the opposite parties during February 1st week.
3. After examining the vehicle, opposite parties promised to complete the work on 20th February and assured that the vehicle will be ready for delivery at 5.30 p.m. on that day. For the work to be done, opposite parties given an estimate of ` 55,000 plus tax. Complainant agreed the same.
4. Complainant is a businessman by profession and vehicle is very necessary for him for his daily affairs. He approached the opposite parties on February 20th, the day agreed for delivery of the vehicle. But the work was not finished and opposite parties told that the vehicle will be delivered on March 10. So he returned to Malappuram in an hired vehicle by paying ` 7,000 for his travel. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite parties on 10.03.2011, 13.04.2011 and 30.04.2011 as directed by the opposite parties. And on April 30, when the complainant approached, opposite parties demanded ` 1,05,000 for the charges of the work done. The said amount is exorbitant than the amount mentioned in the estimate. The complainant is ready and willing to pay the estimated amount. But the opposite parties told that `74,000 was spend for painting. According to the complainant, the painting is not done properly and the back seat upholstery is damaged.
5. Opposite parties failed to give the vehicle on the agreed time. Due to the inordinate delay is delivering the vehicle complainant could not change the Maharastra registration as the last date was 15.03.2011. Complainant is not liable to pay the amount demanded by the opposite parties except the estimate amount and tax. He never asked them to do more works other than the estimated work. Vehicle is now in the custody of opposite parties. Complainant has the liability to pay only the estimated amount and tax which comes only ` 61,000 and he is ready to pay the same.
6. Due to the willful negligence of the opposite parties, complainant sustained a total loss of ` 93,000 by way of taxi charges, addl. Expenses required for transferring the registration and for his mental agony. It is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. In the replication filed by the complainant in counter to the additional written statement and counter claim filed by the opposite parties the complainant contended that the cost of the vehicle and compensation is to be realized from the opposite parties as he is not intended to take delivery of the vehicle as it is not useful to him now due to its present condition.
7. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint for the release of his vehicle from opposite parties on payment of the estimated amount and tax of ` 61,000 and for realizing the compensation of ` 93,000 from the opposite parties. The complainant prays for granting the reliefs.
8. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version with the following contentions: Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opposite parties admitted that on 07.02.2011 complainant approached opposite parties for the painting and repairing works of his Sonata vehicle. Then opposite parties prepared an estimate of ` 55,000 except the works of Bonnet, Dickey and Roof. After completing the work of the vehicle they are keeping the vehicle for delivery. On 20.02.2011 complainant approached the opposite parties and asked to Paint, Bonnet, Dickey and Roof also. For that work they have given an additional estimate for ` 20,000. Complainant accepted the same and the total estimate amount comes to ` 80,000 plus tax and the opposite parties taken the vehicle for the said works also. After completing the said works, on 28.02.2011 vehicle was ready for delivery and it was intimated to the complainant. But he didn’t turned up.
9. After that on test drive it was noticed that there was some complaint to the Gear box and that was informed to the complainant and for repairing the same an additional estimate for ` 30,000 was given, and with the consent of the complainant the said work was also completed. For the whole work the total bill for ` 1,10,000 was prepared and from the said amount the service manager given a discount of ` 5,000 and General Manager given another discount of ` 5,000. Then the total bill amount was ` 1,00,000 which was intimated to the complainant. But the complainant was not ready to pay the bill amount and he had not taken the vehicle. Thereafter complainant filed this complaint along with another petition before the Forum for getting the release of the vehicle and on that petition this Forum issued an interim order for the release of the vehicle on depositing certain amount. But so far the complainant complied the order of this Forum.
10. Moreover, the complainant has not raised any allegation about the quality of work done by the opposite parties. Opposite parties completed their work properly and within proper time. The complainant is trying to get the vehicle without giving the bill amount. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. Further, opposite parties filed an additional written statement and in that they contended that they were keeping the vehicle at their workshop premises and for keeping the same 15 sq.ft. area is spending. For keeping the vehicle the opposite parties demands a rent of Rs.100 per day and they are keeping the vehicle from 07.02.2011 onwards. As per their demand, an amount of ` 27,000 is to be realized from the complainant as rent. The opposite parties totally deny the claim of complainant and contended that there is no deficiency of service from their part.
11. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether the complaint is allowable or not?
12. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and DW1and Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B4. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
13. The Point:- Complainant’s allegation is that his Sonata Hyundai vehicle given to the opposite parties for repainting work and repairing side mirror, running board, beeding etc. But the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in the transaction between the parties by carrying poor works, delay in completing the work and issued excess bill for the works. Additional works claimed to have been done by the opposite parties is without the consent of the complainant. According to the complainant, he is liable to pay only the estimate given to him at the time of giving the vehicle. In the replication complainant contended that the cost of the vehicle and compensation is to be realized from the opposite parties as he is not intended to take delivery of the vehicle as it is not useful to him now due to its present condition. Hence complainant prays for granting the reliefs.
14. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 3 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the customer interactive form issued by opposite parties. Ext.A2 series (A2 to A2 (c) ) are the tourist taxi receipts dated 27.03.2011, 20.02.2011, 02.05.2011 and 13.04.2011. Ext.A3 is the credit invoices dated 31.01.2011 issued by Tharayil Automobile Pvt. Ltd, Perinthalmanna. Another independent witness was also examined as PW2.
15. Opposite parties’ contention is that they have done the whole repair work and repainting work with the knowledge of the complainant and after obtaining his consent. They have completed the work properly within the stipulated time and it was intimated to the complainant. But he did not turned up to take the vehicle paying the bill amount. Complainant is trying to get the vehicle without giving the bill amount. They are keeping the vehicle at their workshop premises. For keeping the said vehicle, rent of Rs. 100 per day is required. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the opposite parties.
16. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the Service Manager of the opposite parties filed proof affidavit along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. B1 to B4. Ext. B1 is the copy of demand letter of spare parts by Geo Quadra Wheels Pvt. Ltd. Ext. B2 is the copy of labour charge of body paint jobs. Ext. B3 is the credit invoice of Geo Quadra dated 28.02.2011. Ext. B4 is the pre-invoice issued by Geo Quadra Wheels Pvt. Ltd.
17. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute that the vehicle is with the opposite parties from February. The dispute is with regard to the work done by the opposite parties. Complainant’s allegation is that he entrusted his car for repainting and for the works of side mirror, running board and beeding and the opposite parties agreed to complete the work for an amount of ` 50,000 plus tax. They have also given an estimate for the same and promised to deliver the vehicle after the works on 20.02.2011. But the vehicle was not delivered on that day and they demanded `1,10,000 claiming that they have done additional works as per the instruction of the complainant. According to the complainant, he never instructed the opposite parties for any other additional works as claimed by the opposite parties.
18. The contention of the opposite party is that, when the vehicle was entrusted for the works, they have estimated the cost of the work as ` 50,000 plus tax and the said works were completed within the time. Later as per the instruction of the complainant, they have done additional works and for the whole works they prepared a bill for ` 1,10,000 and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount. The question to be considered is whether the complainant had given any permission or instruction to carry out any additional works other than the works mentioned in Ext. A1 estimate.
19. On perusal of the available evidence, we cannot find any materials to prove that the complainant had given any consent for additional works. It is the duty of the opposite parties to prove that the complainant had given consent for the additional works. But they failed to adduce any evidence for substantiating their contention. The amount claimed for the additional works is not negligent. So they ought to have obtained the consent of the complainant in black and white like Ext. A1 before starting the said works. That was not seen done in this case by the opposite parties. Moreover, Exts. B1 to B4 documents prepared by the opposite parties alone is not sufficient to substantiate the contention of the opposite parties. So the opposite parties cannot be justified in demanding ` 1,10,000 for the repairs.
20. However, Ext. A1 is only an estimate prepared before starting the works. It is usual that estimate amount may vary during the execution of works for various reasons. So the adamant stand taken by the complainant that he did not pay anything more than Ext.A1 is also not justified. With regard to the allegation in respect of the quality of work, complainant did not proved the allegations with cogent evidence.
21. The dates noted for the purchase of spare parts seen in Ext. B1 shows that the vehicle was not ready for delivery even in the month of April 2011. So the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle was not ready for delivery on the promised date stands proved. The claim of the complainant for his expenses and other losses are not allowable for want of better and convincing evidence.
22. From the overall facts and circumstances, we found certain deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint can be allowed with certain modifications.
23. In the result, this complaint is allowed with modification; thereby the opposite parties are directed to return the vehicle to the complainant on getting Ext. A1 amount plus 25% of Ext. A1 amount from the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay ` 7,500 (Rupees Seven thousand five hundred only) as compensation and ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost to the complainant. Parties are directed to comply this order within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order and in the event of non-compliance of the order by the opposite parties, the complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the vehicle from the opposite parties.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) :
Sri. N.Premkumar (Member) :
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : N. Muraleedharan Nair.
PW2 : Basheer.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Customer interactive form issued by opposite parties.
A2, (A2(a), A2(b) & A2(c) : tourist taxi receipts dated 27.03.2011, 20.02.2011, 02.05.2011
and 13.04.2011.
A3 : Credit invoices dated 31.01.2011 issued by Tharayil Automobile Pvt. Ltd,
Perinthalmanna.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Joe. P. Zachariah
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Copy of demand letter of spare parts by Geo Quadra Wheels Pvt. Ltd.
B2 : Copy of painting labour chart.
B3 : Credit invoice of Geo Quadra Wheels Pvt. Ltd. dated 28.02.2011.
B4 : Pre-invoice issued by Geo Quadra Wheels Pvt. Ltd.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) N. Muraleedharan, Palazhi House, Cheenamputhoor, Kavathikulam,
Kottackal P.O., Malappuram Dist.
(2) Mathew George, Director, Geo Quadra Wheels Pvt. Ltd., Mallassery Junction,
Kumbazha P.O., Pathanamthitta.
(3) Joe, Sales Manager, Geo Quadra Wheels Pvt. Ltd., Mallassery Junction,
Kumbazha P.O., Pathanamthitta.
(4) Nublin, Geo Quadra Wheels Pvt. Ltd., Mallassery Junction,
Kumbazha P.O., Pathanamthitta.
(5) The Stock File.
