DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  20^th day of  June, 2023 

Present      :    Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :   Smt. Vidya A., Member                       

                  :   Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                               Date of Filing: 04/07/2019  

                         CC/191/2019

Bharathkumar S

S/o. T. Swaminathan,

Edapallath House, Nairthara,

Nenmmara, Chittur,

Palakkad  – 678 508.                                                  -                       Complainant

(By Adv. P.A.Surendran)

                                                                                                Vs

1. Krishnadas,

             M/s. Dubai Motors,

             Hi-Tech Car Workshop,

Opp. M/s. Palana Hospital,

Kannadi PO, Palakkad – 678 010.

2. M/s. Dubai Motors,

Hi-Tech Car Workshop,

Opp. M/s. Palana Hospital,

Kannadi PO, Palakkad – 678 010.                               -                       Opposite parties

(O.P.s 1 & 2 by Adv. M/s. John John & Chenthamarakshan)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. The complainant noticed presence of oil content in radiator tank of his car and approached OP No. 1 at his workshop on 6/10/2018.  Upon inspection, staff of OP informed the complainant that the presence of oil is due to damaged engine head casket and other few allied complaints.  Therefore the complainant handed over the vehicle to the opposite party on 6/10/2018. On 23/10/2018 OP No.1 informed the complainant that the vehicle was ready and directed the complainant to take away the vehicle. But contrary to the assurance made by OP1 on 6/10/2018 that the cost of repairs would come only to Rs.20,000/-, the OP charged him Rs.62,560/- which the complainant paid under protest. On 25/10/2018 the complainant drove to Cochin and on 26/10/2018 noticed that the radiator coolant contained oil. The opposite party assured that there would be no adverse complications due to the presence of oil. They also informed the complainant that presence of oil was due to non changing radiator water during the service carried out. On 27/10/2018 at 3.30 AM, the car suffered a break down at an isolated location in Tamilnadu. Even upon contacting the opposite party, they failed to provide any succor. He had to hand over the vehicle to a local garage and get the vehicle repaired. The rest of the journey had to be carried out availing public transport and his family was put to irreparable agony and mental pain. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed seeking return of the cost of service as well as for incidental and ancillary reliefs.
2. The opposite parties filed version contesting complainant pleading. They submitted that the vehicle was handed over  to the complainant on 6/10/2018 itself and contrary to assertions made by the complainant, the vehicle was not at all kept in the yard of the opposite party.  The opposite party had carried out all the works of overhauling the vehicle for 62,560/- with the consent of the complainant.  This opposite party never informed the complainant   that the works would come only to Rs.20,000/-. The mishap occurred is only due to mishandling of vehicle by the complainant. The vehicle had already run for about 600kms after 6/10/2018 before the alleged damaged occurred.
3.  The following issues  needs to considered for adjudication of the dispute.

1. Whether the complainant has proved that the breakdown of the vehicle has a direct nexus to the repairs carried out in opposite party service station ?
2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
4. Any other reliefs?

4. (i)         Complainant filed    proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A5  and complainant was examined as PW1.

(ii)        Opposite party did not mark any document even though they filed proof affidavit. Signatory of proof affidavit was examined as DW1.

(iii)       The expert commissioner appointed by this Commission filed his report which was marked as Ext.C1.

            Issue No. 1

5.         Complainant’s case, unequivocally, is that even after keeping the car in O.P.’s possession for over 18 days, from 06/10/2018, the O.P. failed to change the water in Radiator and consequently the car suffered  break down on 27/08/2018 lending cause of action for this complaint. 

6.         In the facts and circumstances fo the case, the complainant is saddled with the burden to prove that there is a direct and substantial nexus between the service works carried out in the O.P. service station and the breakdown that occurred on 27/10/2018.

7.         In order to substantiate his case, the complainant took out an expert commission whose report was marked as Ext. C1. Ext. C1 is a long drawn report that states how the opposite parties ought to have carried out the repair emphasizing the various theoretical aspects tangential to the crucial maters to be looked into. As already stated, burden of the complainant was to prove that the break-down of the car has a direct nexus to the repairs carried out by the O.P. Inorder to ascertain the same, chronology is to be ascertained.

It can be seen that the inspection for ascertaining the cause of break down that occurred on 27/10/2018 was carried out belatedly on 11/02/2020 and that too after the vehicle had underwent substantial repairs. Therefore dependability of Ext.C1 is in doubt. To that extent the opposite parties had filed their objections as well.

On a perusal of Ext. C1 we could not find an iota of material that could show a direct and substantial nexus between the works carried out in OP service station and the break down on 27/10/2018. Hence Ext. C1 falls short in proving the cause of break down.

8.         At this juncture, it would be essential to deal with one particular pleadings of the complainant that the vehicle was with the O.P. from 06/10/2018 till 24/10/2018. But Ext. A2 bill issued by the O.P. belies the statement of the complainant. Even during cross examination, the counsel for the complainant had not examined DW1 regarding date of Ext. A2. Hence we do not think there is any foul play regarding the date of issuance of Ext. A2. Ext. A2 is a reliable document so as to presume the date on which the work of the vehicle was completed is 06/10/2018.

9.         The primary evidence that would have revealed the cause of break down suffered on 27/10/2018 could be obtained by availing evidence from Dhanalakshmi Auto Zone India Pvt.Ltd., Chennai, the 3^rd party service centre that carried out repairs on the complainant’s vehicle. In our opinion they are the only persons who had first-hand knowledge of the condition of the car, at least as on 09/11/2018.

Having failed to avail evidence from this service centre, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove a direct and substantial nexus between the break down and service carried out in opposite party service station.

            Issue No. 2

10.       Consequently we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

Issue No. 3 & 4

11.       Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

12.       In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

13.       Accordingly this complaint is dismissed.

                  Pronounced in open court on this the  20^th  day of June, 2023.      

                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                                            Vinay Menon V

                                                                President

                        Sd/-

                  Vidya.A

                                       Member        

           Sd/-                             Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                     Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :

Ext.A1 – Visiting Card of OP   

Ext.A2 –  Original invoice dated 6/10/2018

Ext.A3  – Original 5 bus tickets 

Ext.A4 –  Original invoice dated 31/12/2018  

Ext.A5 –  Copy of lawyers notice dated 18/3/2019

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:   Nil

Court Exhibit: 

Ext.C1 – Commission report dated  13/02/2020 alongwith attachments.

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 –  Bharathkumar S (Complainant)

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: 

DW1 – Krishnadas (OP1)

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.