SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to return the amount of Rs.52,500/-  was paid for the service of OP and Rs.20,000/- as compensation to complainant.

Complaint in brief

                The complainant owns an Audi Q3 which showed some starting problem and complainant approached the authorized service centre of Audi in Calicut and came to know that the service centre was temporary closed.  Then the complainant approached OP for repair works and OP given an estimation of Rs.57,800/- and complainant entrusted the vehicle to OP.  The OP made complainant to believe that the flywheel they purchased will be of high quality and will be in good condition for next 1 lakh Kilometers.  The OP assured the delivery of vehicle after repair within 10 days of receipt of the vehicle.  But the delay made by OP only after 5 weeks on payment of Rs. 52,500/-.  After repair the vehicle runs only 550 Km. and soon after the service the car sustained starting problem and the fly wheel got damaged.  The complainant contacted OP but all went in deaf ear.  The OP was not ready to resolve the issue.  The complainant sustained damage even after payment of huge amount.  Due to the deficiency in service from the part of OP complainant filed this complaint.

            After filing the complaint, notice was issue to OP which was duly served.  The OP has not appeared before the commission and not filed any version.  Hence the commission held that OP has no version and the case proved against OP as set ex-parte.

            Even though OP has remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the OP.   Hence the complainant was called up on to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.  Accordingly complainant has chosen to produce affidavit with 3 documents marking them Ext. A1 to A3 and C1 marked.  Ext. A1 is the estimate issued by OP, Ext.A2 is the copy of complaint and Ext.A3 is the Acknowledgment card, Ext.C1 is the expert commission report.  So the OP is remained absent is this case. At the end the commission heard the case on merit.

            On the perusal of documents produced by complainant in order to answer the deficiency in service from the part of OP, it is seen from Ext.A1 than an estimate of Rs.57,800/- is quoted for crane service, clutch set with fly wheel, Gear, Clutch etc. but there is no evidence on Ext.A1 like name of OP’s repair shop Seal etc. that it is issued by OP. Hence the estimate (Ext.A1) is not enough to prove the repair of vehicle by OP.  But the OP appeared before the expert commission during the examination of vehicle.  On the perusal of point No.2,3,5,7,8 of Ext.C1, the expert commissioner report, it is clear that complainant entrusted vehicle to OP and OP done the repair works and after 8 months usage, the defect arose and also stated in Commission Report that the genuinity of the spare parts used can be ascertained only by removal of unit and also stated starting problem may arise due the defect in fly wheel.  Hence it cannot be ascertained whether the defect arise due to the low quality of fly wheel.  But, Commission Report specifically stated the vehicle sustained starting problem and OP never denied their repair work done as demanded by complainant.  On the basis of Commission Report, the OP is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service since, there is no other evidence to show the payment of Rs.52,500/- and the quality of the materials used.  The complainant is entitled to get the service from OP of free of cost.  Therefore, Ext.A1 can be considered only on an assumption that it was issued by OP.   The OP had given fair chances by commission to defend the case and OP appeared before commission and remained ex-parte before expert commissioner.  Finally, the commission came into the conclusion the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the denial of service as required by complainant.

            In the result the complaint is allowed in part, the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the denial of service by opposite party.  The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/-  towards the compensation and also pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.  In default the amount of  Rs.50,000/- carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.  Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts.

A1-Estimate of repair issued by OP dated 14/08/2021

A2-Copy of complaint

A3-Acknowledgement card

C1-Expert commission report

Sd/                                                                           Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar