IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM

            DATED THIS THE 27^TH   DAY OF MAY 2016

Present: -        Smt. G.Vasanthakumari, President

Adv. Ravisusha, Member

Adv.M.Praveen Kumar, Member

         CC.No.248/2015

Shain.S                                                                       :                                   Complainant

Saji Bhavan

Kottathala P.O

Kottarakkara

Kollam – 691566

[By Adv.Benoy.Bal, Kollam]

V/S

            1.         M/s.HABROS Industries                  :                                   Opposite parties

                        Automobile and Engineering Works

                        Development Plot No.37

                        Industrial Estate

                        Mundakkal West, Kollam – 691001

                        Represented by its Managing Partner

            2.         Sailath

                        Managing Partner

M/s.HABROS Industries                                         

Automobile and Engineering Works

                        Development Plot No.37

                        Industrial Estate

                        Mundakkal West

                        Kollam – 691001

                        [By Adv. P.Shaiju, Mangad, Kollam]

ORDER

ADV. M. PRAVEEN KUMAR, MEMBER

            Complainant’s case is that he is the registered owner of an Indigo CS car bearing Registration No.KL-24B-4500. Since the radiator of the said car became defective by overheating, the complainant entrusted the car for repair with the opposite parties on 18/12/2014. On 23/01/2015 the complainant was informed by the opposite parties that the defect was cured and when the complainant approached the opposite parties for taking the car the opposite party demanded an exorbitant amount as repairing charge. The complainant then demanded the bill for

(2)

the amount claimed by the opposite parties, but they refused to issue it. Hence the complainant lodged a complaint before the circle of Police Kollam East Police Station on 30/01/2015 regarding the demand of excess charge by the opposite party and also for issuance of the bill. On interference by the police the opposite parties issued a main bill dated 17/01/2015 and 5 supplementary bills on 02/02/2015. The opposite parties charged on aggregate of Rs.49,739.71 from the complainant and made him believe that the complete repair works mentioned by the complainant was done and the car is in perfect condition.

            After getting delivery of the vehicle from the workshop, the vehicle again showed the defects and complainant became doubtful regarding the work done by the opposite party and hence he took the vehicle to Mangalasserry Motor Company a Government approved shop for conducting a survey . After conducting a detailed survey they gave a report with the following three observations: (1) Complete engine work is not done (2) Engine overall kit not fully replaced.(3) Cost of spares and labour charges are too exorbitant (as per bill). This act of the opposite parties is not repairing the vehicle as assured to the complainant and charging excess repairing charges which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The vehicle is kept idle and the complainant is forced to hire vehicle for his needs. The complainant has suffered immense mental agony as well as huge monetary loss due to the acts of the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the losses already sustained by the complainant. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for getting direction to repair the vehicle of the complainant and deliver the vehicle in a defect free condition within a time by opposite parties and directed to return Rs.49,739.71 being the excess amount charged for the spare parts and the repairing by opposite parties and directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

            Opposite parties 1 and 2 set exparte.

            The points that would arise for consideration are:-

(1). Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            (2). Reliefs and costs?

The evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by the complainant and documentary evidence Exts P1 to P4.

(3)

The Points:- After getting notice from this Forum opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared before the Forum through their counsels. But later they neither adduce any evidence nor filed version so far. Hence opposite parties 1 and 2 were declared as exparte. Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents produced were marked as Exts P1 to P4. On examination of the documents and facts of the case we are constrained to believe the complainant’s case found that gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and complainant is liable to get relief.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to repair the complainant’s vehicle in a defect free condition within 45 days and opposite parties again return Rs.49,739/- to the complainant and opposite parties further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant. The order has to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Dated this the 27^th   day of May  2016.                                                                                                                                                                     

G.VASANTHAKUMARI:Sd/-

ADV.RAVISUSHA:Sd/-

ADV.M.PRAVEENKUMAR: Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

Senior Superintendent

I N D E X

Ext.P.1:-Tax invoice dated 12/01/2015

Ext.P.2:-Receipts from HABROS Industries dated 17/01/2015

Ext.P.3:-Acknowledgment receipt of petition dated 30/01/2015

Ext.P.4:-Inspection report from Mangalasserry Motor Company, Chengamanadu dated 13/02/15