IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.271/2023 (Filed on 21/08/2023)
Complainant : Anand.R. Krishnan,
Souparnika House,
Kareepra,
Kuzhimathikadu P.O,
Kollam – 691 509.
Vs.
Opposite party : The Manager,
Pala Motors,
Ezhaparambil Building,
Mutholy Junction,
Pala, Kottayam - 686 573.
O R D E R
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant approached the opposite party believing that the opposite
party was the authorized service centre of Suzuki as per the opposite party’s website for servicing his Suzuki GIXXER SF Motorcycle on 25/03/2023. The vehicle had a complaint of front brake disc. The opposite party examined the vehicle and asked the complainant to keep it with them. On 27/03/2023 the opposite party informed the complainant that he had to pay Rs.4,000/- towards the advance payment for replacing the brake disc of the motorcycle. Thus the complainant transferred Rs.4,000/- through Google pay to the account of the opposite party. On 26/03/2023 complainant was informed that the works were completed and could be taken delivery of the same. The complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.4,575/- on the same day via Google pay. But the complaint of the disk brake was not rectified and the opposite party assured that it would be rectified after running a few distance. But thereafter the brake again got completely defective. The complainant consulted with Golden Suzuki Toms Motors, Pathanamthitta on 10/08/2023 and on their inspection it was found that the replaced brake parts were not genuine but those were parts of some other model motorcycle.
When the complainant contacted the opposite party and enquired about this, its manager told abusive words to the complainant and told him that they were not an authorised service centre of Suzuki. The complainant had to pay Rs.4,911/- again due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party. The complainant understood that the bill issued by the opposite party was not a bill but only an estimate.
Hence aggrieved by the deficient act of the opposite party the complaint is filed for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.8,575/- and Rs.4,911/- to the complainant along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost.
The complainant has produced and marked Exhibits A1 to A4 towards his evidence.
On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, we would frame the following points :
(1) Whether a clear case of deficiency in service is made out by the complainant ?
(2) If so what are the reliefs to be granted?
POINTS :-
The case of the complainant is that even after repeated service the brake of the complainant’s vehicle Suzuki GIXXER SF Motorcycle again turned defective, causing financial loss and mental hardships to the complainant. The opposite party did not turn up and contest the case.
From A1, the estimate given by the opposite party, it is clear that the opposite party has given an estimate for the work of the complainant’s vehicle of Rs.8,575/-. As there is no contrary evidence to rebut the averment that the complainant has paid Rs.8,575/- towards the service of the vehicle, it can be considered that the complainant had made the said payment. Exhibit A2 is the tax invoice issued by Toms Motors Pvt.Ltd., Pathanamthitta for the repair of the complainant’s vehicle by which Rs.4,911/- was paid by the complainant. Further, Exhibit A3 is the complainant’s bank account statement which clearly shows the two payments made to the opposite party ie, Rs. 4,000/- on 27/03/2023 and Rs.4,575/- on 28/03/2023 respectively.
From the above discussed evidence on record, we are of the view that the complainant had entrusted the opposite party with the service of his vehicle. As the complaint stands unopposed, the averments and allegations of the complainant shall be taken into account. We infer that there is gross deficiency on the part of the opposite party in not servicing the vehicle properly. It has not rendered proper service to its customer in the required quality and standard. The opposite party did not appear or contest the case. So the allegations stand unchallenged.
As per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes—
(i) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; and
(ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.
The complainant had to pay an extra Rs.4,911/- for the rectification of the vehicle subsequently which is proved by Exhibit A2. The complainant alleges that the opposite party itself represented as the authorised service centre of the Zuzuki company. Exhibit A4 is the printout of the page in the website of the company Zuzuki in which the opposite party is shown as their authorised dealer in Pala. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party had denied the claim that it was an authorised dealer/service centre of the Zuzuki.
From the above discussion we find that the points are answered against the opposite party and hence the complaint can be allowed. The complaint is allowed vide the following
ORDER
1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.13,486/-(Rupees Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Six only) to the complainant with an interest @9% from the date of filing of the complaint 21/08/2023 till realisation.
2. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) towards litigation cost.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of this order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 13th day of December, 2023
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S, President Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Copy of Estimate issued by the opposite party
A2 - Copy of Tax Invoice for Rs.4,911/- issued by
Toms Motors (P) Limited, Pathanamthitta
A3 - Copy of complainant’s bank account statement
A4 - Copy of printout of the page in the website of the
company Zuzuki
Exhibits from the side of Opposite party :
Nil. By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar