By: Sri. Mohandasan K., President
1. The complainant entrusted scooter bearing registration No. KL 10 AC 9437 to the opposite party for rectifying mechanical defects. The opposite party rectified the defects and returned back the scooter after receiving Rs.6,700/- towards the mechanical work. But on riding the scooter it was found that the defects was not duly rectified and then again contacted the opposite party for rectification of the defects. Then the opposite party directed the complainant to produce the vehicle duly and on 10/09/2021 the complainant entrusted vehicle for repairing. At that time the opposite party demanded Rs.4,000/- for the replacement of defective parts which was actually already replaced. The complainant paid Rs.4,000/ and while started to use the vehicle again, it was found the complaint of the vehicle was not properly rectified. Then immediately the complainant took the vehicle to the opposite party and that at time the opposite party collected further amount of Rs.1,400/- for the cost of parts. Unfortunately while the complainant started to use the same it was again noticed the complaint of the vehicle was not rectified. Accordingly, the complainant contacted the opposite party and as per the instruction, the complainant produced the vehicle before the opposite party on 08/11/2021. The opposite party said to the complainant that he will call for informing the defects of vehicle and the expenses thereof. But the opposite party did not call the complainant and the vehicle stands with the opposite party. The complainant alleges the opposite party collected more than 12,100/- rupees on account of service to the vehicle. Hence the complainant prays for rectification of mistake of the vehicle and also compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Complainant also prays for the refund of repair cost Rs.12,100/-.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and on receipt of notice the opposite party filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is not the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was brought to the opposite party for repairing but not by the complainant. The vehicle was brought during the year 2019 alleging poor pulling power. The vehicle is 2009 model and the opposite party had received 6,700/- rupees as the cost of parts and labor charge. The opposite party had given reduction of Rs.350/- to the complainant. The relatives of the complainant used the vehicle for more than 2 years after service. The complainant again brought the vehicle before the opposite party on 14/10/2021 alleging defects. On examination it was found the defects are due to the old of the vehicle. There was engine defect to the vehicle. The defect of the engine was repaired by the opposite party and that is why the vehicle could use by the complainant for further period of 2 years. While the complainant brought the vehicle during second time the engine piston was changed and at that time the opposite party collected 4,000/- rupees towards engine piston parts and labor cost. But the opposite party received only 2,800/- after deducting Rs.1,200/-, since the vehicle was repaired from the opposite party about 2 years ago. On 08/11/2021 complainant approached the opposite party and used harsh words like “താന് എന്ത് മെക്കാനിക്ക് ആണ്ടോ” and placed the scooter at the premises of the opposite party and threatened that he will meet the complainant from court. The submission of the opposite is that only that occasion the opposite party seen the complainant. The Opposite party had assured to the complainant that they are prepared to rectify any sort of defect to the vehicle. The opposite party called complainant various occasions but the complainant did not take away the scooter. The opposite party was ready to hand over the vehicle to the complainant, but the complainant was not amenable for the offer made by the opposite party. The submission of the opposite party is that all the defects or complaints to the vehicle is due to the old age of the vehicle. There is no defect is caused to the vehicle due to the work of the opposite party.
3. The opposite party submitted that the complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation and opposite party has not received Rs.12,100/- from the complainant. The only amount received by the opposite party is Rs. 9,150/-. The said amount was not at all paid by the complainant. The attempt of the complainant is to harass the opposite party and thereby attempting to grab money from the opposite party. The complainant approached the Commission without clean hands and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the e opposite party.
4. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is Additional spare issued job collection sheet for Rs.4,000/- dated 14/10. Ext. A2 is a cash receipt issued by prince auto engineering works for Rs.1,990/-. Ext. A3 is copy of invoice dated 30/10/2021 for Rs.534/-. Ext. A4 is copy of counter sales for Rs.874/- dated 25/10/2021. The opposite party did not file document.
5. Heard both sides, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
6. Point No.1 &2
The admitted case is that the complainant approached the opposite party with scooter, bearing No. KL 10 AC 9437, which Is actually belongs to his relative. The complainant has not stated the date on which the vehicle was initially taken to the opposite party for service. But the opposite party submits that the vehicle was taken to the opposite party during the year 2019 i.e. prior to 2 years of filing this complaint. The opposite party also submit that the vehicle is a model of 2009 i.e., vehicle is more than 10 year old one. The opposite party also contended that the defect noticed was due to old age of the scooter. The opposite party further contended that the engine defect was duly corrected and thereafter the vehicle was used by the relative of complainant for 2 years. It is also contended that while the complainant brought the vehicle before the opposite party for the rectification of the defect it was duly attended by the opposite party. The opposite party had given reduction of Rs.1,200/- towards the repair cost. The submission of opposite party is that the vehicle was duly rectified at the last occasion also but the opposite party refused to take away the vehicle. According to the opposite party the vehicle is with him after rectification of complaints. He was ready and willing to attend the defect of the vehicle also.
7. It can be seen that the complainant produced Ext. A1 to A4 and they are not establishing the averment in the complaint or affidavit except Ext. A1. The complainant has not denied the version of the opposite party regarding the manufacturing year, the date of first service, the reduction of cost of Rs.1,200/-. So the version of the opposite party is more reliable than the affidavit of the complainant. Hence we do not find merit in the contention of the complainant. The complainant is entitled to take back the vehicle which is kept with the opposite party in a running condition. The opposite party has submitted the vehicle is in a defect free running condition and returnable to the complainant.
8. We accept the version of the opposite party that the vehicle is in a defect free running condition. The opposite party is liable to deliver the vehicle in a defect free running condition to the complainant. Hence, we dismiss this complaint with the direction to the opposite party to deliver the scooter in a defect free running condition on approaching the opposite party by the complainant without any claim of cost or charges on the scooter.
With the above observation the complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 14th day of December, 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: NIL
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A4
Ext.A1: Additional spare issued job collection sheet for Rs.4,000/- dated 04/10.
Ext.A2: Cash receipt issued by prince auto engineering works.
Ext A3: Copy of invoice dated 30/10/2021 for Rs.534/-.
Ext A4: Copy of counter sale for Rs.874/- dates 25/10/2021.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
