D.O.F:25/09/2020
D.O.O:19/12/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.124/2020
Dated this, the 19th day of December 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
- V Sathyanathan, Adult
Son of Bhargavan,
R/at Durga Bhavan,
Valappil, Mahe PO,
Pondichery- 671310
: Complainants
- T.R Krishnan, Adult
Son of Raman,
R/at Malamkunnu,
Trikkannad, Kasaragod.
(Adv: Shajid Kammadam)
New Calicut Electrical Works,
Kottikulam, Bekal Post
Kasaragod District rep by: Opposite party
Its proprietor Babu Rajendran
(Adv: Sumesh .P.V)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The complainant No:1 is the R.C owner of the vehicle Toyota Altis bearing Reg: No PY/03/A 9390 . The complainant No: 2 is the brother in law of the Complainant No:1, who used the vehicle for his personal requirements. The vehicle required some auto electrical works and entrusted the vehicle with Opposite Party for examination by the mechanic on 2/12/2019. The Opposite Party prepared job sheet and the copy was handed over to the complainant No:2. Opposite Party accepted the vehicle and parked it in their working space and informed the complainant No:2 that the vehicle would be returned after two weeks on curing the defects. On 21/12/2019 the Opposite Party intimated the complainant that one Nandhan illegally trespassed to their working place and damaged the vehicle Toyota Altis bearing Reg: No: PY/03/A/9390. The trespassed Nandan broken the indicator light, side mirror, and caused substantial body damaged to the vehicle. The complainant demanded the Opposite Party to compensate the damages sustained to the vehicle while it is in their custody. Even though the Opposite Party agreed to restore the vehicle to its original position at the time of entrustment, he failed to do so. The complainant lodged a complaint before SHO Bekal, and as a result the Opposite Party was summoned to Bakel Police station, after the discussion the Opposite Party agreed to repair the same on or before 25/01/ 2020. On the assurance of the Opposite Party No:1 that he will repair and deliver the vehicle within 2 weeks the SHO Bekal disposed of the petition. Later on 28/01/2020 the Opposite Party returned the vehicle without repairing it. There after the complainant No:2 entrusted the vehicle with authorized service station at Periya and Repaired the vehicle after spending Rs. 27,384/- . Due to the delay in delivery of the car in time by the Opposite Party the complainant constrained to exhaust a rent car for Rs. 1,14,0000/- . Due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service the complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony. The complainant is seeking compensation for loss and mental agony of Rs. 1,91,384/- with 12% interest the date of incident till disposal with Rs. 10,000/- as cost.
No version filed by Opposite Party. The complainant filed IA.288/21 to amend the complaint IA allowed as a result name of Complaint No:2 deleted.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext A1 to A4 marked Ext A1 is the job sheet issued by the Opposite Party, Ext A2 is the letter written by Opposite Party, Ext A3 is the itemized bill issued by Aman Toyota, Ext A4 is the registered notice issued by the complainant No:1.
The issues raised for consideration are
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party?
- Whether the complainant entitled for compensation
- If so what is the relief
The allegation of the complainant No:1 is that he is the owner of the vehicle Toyota Altis bearing Reg: No: PY/03/A/9390. The complainant No:1 has given the vehicle to his brother in law for his personal use. As the vehicle need some auto electrical works the complainant No:1 entrusted the vehicle with Opposite Party on 21/12/2019. In the mean while the brother of complainant No: 2, one Nandhan illegally trespassed and damaged the aforesaid vehicle Toyota Altis Reg: NO: PY/03/A/9390 the trespasser broken the indicator light side mirror and caused substantial body damaged to the vehicle. The complainant demanded the Opposite Party to rectify the defect sustained to the vehicle while it is in their custody. The Opposite Party agreed to restore the vehicle to its original position at the time of entrustment, but he failed to do so as Mr. Nandhan, the brother of the complainant No:2 has gone to gulf without making any arrangement for service charges and out of station during that time. The complainant had given a complaint to the SHO Bekal. The Opposite Party agreed to rectify the damages of the vehicle on or before 25/01/2020. So the SHO Bekal disposed of the petition. Later on 28/01/2020 the Opposite Party returned the vehicle without repairing it. Thereafter the complainant No: 2 entrusted the vehicle with authorized service centre at Periya were the vehicle repaired on spending Rs. 27,384/-. Due to the non-delivery of the car in time by Opposite Party the complainant constrained to take a car in rental basis for Rs. 1,14,000/- the complainant suffered huge loss and deficiency in service. Ext A2 is the letter written by Opposite Party to the complainant which reveals that the vehicle was damaged by Mr.Nandhan, the brother of the complainant No:2 who is in gulf thereafter. So Opposite Party could not repair and return back the vehicle in the absence of Nandan, who has not made any arrangement into meet the service charge. The trespassed Nandan and Opposite party are equally liable for damage of the car. But it is surprising that the complainant had not taken any steps against Mr. Nandan who willfully caused damage to the vehicle. It is a strange incident no one will trespass into a service centre and damage vehicles without any personal grudge. It is true that there is negligence on the part of Opposite party, as he could not provide proper safety to the vehicle. Mere denial of service also amounts to deficiency in service.
Considering the circumstances of this case and the documents and affidavit filed before the commission and in the absence of rebuttal evidence we are of the view that complainants loss and agony has to be compensated in terms of money. The claim of the complainant is that Rs. 1,91,384/- with interest and cost. But the calculation without any basis. The complainant might had constrained to hire a car, but the registration No: and the receipts for payments made are not produced. Hence we hold that an amount of Rs. 5000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result complaint is allowed directing Opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant with a cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only).
The time for compliance is 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Job Sheet issued by opposite party
A2: Letter written by opposite party Dt: 28/01/2020
A3: Itemized bill issued by Amana Toyota
A4: Registered notice issued by the complainant No:1
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
