IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 12thday of July, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 75/2019 (filed on 25-04-2019)
Petitioner : T.N. Sukumaran,
S/o. Narayanan,
Thanikadu,
AyyarkulangaraBhagom,
Vaikom (PO) Vaikom,
Kottayam.
(Adv. V.D. Joseph)
Vs.
Opposite Party : Praveenkumar,
The Proprietor, Auto Planet,
Maruti Service Centre,
Valiyakavala,
Ernakulam Road,
Vaikom (PO) Vaikom,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Akash K.R.)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
The complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complainant is a registered owner of Maruti Wagnon R motor car bearing Reg. No. KL-05-R-5648. The opposite party is the proprietor of Auto Planet, authorized service centre of Maruti vehicles at Vaikom Taluk. During 1st week of March 2018 the vehicle hit on the compound wall of the complainant’s property and the radiator part of the vehicle was damaged. When the complainant approached the opposite party after an inspection, the opposite party assured him that they would rectify and cure the damages within the budget of 6,000/-. Believing his words the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the respondent. On 14-03-2018 the vehicle was ready for delivery and the opposite party intimated the complainant that all the works entrusted are completed including dent removing and path works. The opposite party issued an estimate of repairs for Rs.15,500/- as repairing charges. At the time of delivery, the opposite party assured the complainant that all the defects of the vehicle were cured and same was fit for any journey as of a brand new one. But later the complainant had understood that the respondent had done only peripheral maintenance and no radiator damage were rectified. The vehicle was not even fit to travel beyond a distance of 5 km at a stretch. Hence he was compelled to approach the respondent again and again to rectify the defect but nothing has been done from his part and dragged the same by saying some or other reasons. At last the complainant approached Indus Motors, Thalayoloaparmbu where they detected the defect and cured the same at a cost of Rs.6,889/-. Thereafter the complainant approached the respondent several times to get back the money which was looted from him. But the respondent turned around and threatened the complainant with dare consequences. Hence the complainant was compelled to lodge a police complaint against the respondent but due to the opposite parties high political clout nothing has been done from the part of police. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and he is bound to compensate the complainant for the inconvenience caused to him on account of huge dereliction committed by the opposite parties.
Upon receipt of notice from this Commission, the opposite party appeared and filed version.
In the version, opposite party contented that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
The statement of the complainant that his vehicle hit on the compound wall and radiator of the car was damaged is false. The complainant brought his vehicle for accident repair to the opposite party only after certain failed attempts of repairs by some other mechanic. It was informed by the complainant that the damage to the vehicle was the result of its collision with the compound wall. Though the front body and the cross member of the vehicle was not damaged, the opposite party had never assured the complainant that the defect of the vehicle could be rectified within a budget of Rs.6,000/-. The opposite party and his technicians started the work only after the complainant approved the work estimate of Rs.15,000/-. The vehicle was returned defect free and in a road worthy condition. The opposite party has carried out the entire mechanical works and repair of the vehicle to the satisfaction and approval of the complainant. At the time of repair of the vehicle by the opposite party, the radiator of the complainant’s vehicle was not damaged and as such it did not require any repair. The complainant never approached the opposite party for rectifying any defect as alleged. The averment that the complainant approached the opposite party many times to get back the money but the opposite party conveniently turned around and threatened the complainant etc.is false. The averment regarding the police complaint that the police did not take any action because of the high influence of the opposite party is not correct. The opposite party is not aware of the averment that the defect of the vehicle was cured by Indus Motors, Thalayolaparambu at a cost of Rs.6,889/-. The opposite party has only received amount for the work carried out by him. The complainant has approached the Hon’ble Commission in an experimental basis. The complainant is a habitual litigant and the complaint is filed without any bonafides. Only after 18 months of repair, the complainant has approached this Commission, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The opposite party is a Diploma holder in automobile engineering with 20 years of experience in the field of automobile repairing. Only with his expertise, hard work and dedication he could obtain a goodwill to his proprietorship. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents marked as Ext.A1 to A9 towards the evidence of this case. Opposite party also filed proof affidavit with no documents.
The complainant was examined as Pw1 and the opposite party as Dw1.
On perusal of the above complaint, version and evidence on record we frame the following issues.
- Whether the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party is established with pleadings and evidence?
- If so what are the reliefs?
The complaint has been filed against the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party by not rectifying the defect of radiator of the vehicle even after accepting payment of 15,500/- . Whereas the opposite party opposed the averments that the complainant is trying to get undue advantage and there is no deficiency of service as there was no complaint to the radiator of the vehicle at the time of entrusting the vehicle with him.
On giving a deep attention to the complaint and evidence, we can see that the alleged accident took place in the first week of March 2018 and the vehicle was got repaired by the opposite party on 14.3.2018. Thereafter on 17.3.18the complainant lodged a complaint before the Vaikom police station alleging that the opposite party has substituted the radiator of his vehicle with another one causing unusual sound. Exhibit A2 is the estimate of repair issued by the opposite party on 14.3.18 in which no radiator repair is shown. There is cross member bracket and replacement of cross member in A2. The complainant has no case that the opposite party had not done the estimated works. The complainant in his deposition has stated that the vehicle was taken to another workshop at Edappally as per the direction of the police in furtherance of his complaint along with the opposite party. But there is no evidence to prove that the op has travelled along with the complainant in his vehicle and the said vehicle was stopped on the way by overheating.Dw1 also has denied this in cross examination. Moreover, the DW1, the opposite party himself has categorically deposed that the member upper, cross member, stabilizer bracket were replaced. The suspension was only removed and refixed. A question was put to DW1 that if the cross member and components were damaged, would the radiator also get damaged? The DW1 has answered that the radiator is usually mounted upon a rubber seating. Only if the accident has such a heavy impact that if the radiator is damaged, the driver would definitely be injured. The cross member was bent and so it was replaced. Again when we take the deposition of the PW1, it is seen that he has no consistency in his statements. PW1 has deposed that the coolant of the vehicle was leaking and the lamps were not working. He has categorically stated that he had not taken the vehicle to any other workshop than Indus motors, Thalayolapparambu. Subsequently he has stated that he had shown the vehicle to several workshops after taking delivery from the opposite party.
Moreover, the complainant had stated nowhere in the police complaints or in the original complaint before this commission that the vehicle was taken to one workshop at Edappally along with the opposite party but has deposed for the first time. The allegation that the op had damaged the key of the car also was raised first time in the box.
On a detailed analysis of the pleadings and evidence, we could see that though the complainant alleges that there was radiator complaint to his vehicle which was not attended by the opposite party, he has not cared to take any expert opinion to establish that the vehicle was having such a defect which was not cured by the opposite party. Whereas Exhibit A2, the estimate given by the opposite party is corroborated by the deposition of DW2 that there is no place for doubt that the opposite party has not done the work undertaken by him. The complainant has failed to produce any evidence to show that he had entrusted the vehicle with radiator complaint to the opposite party which was not attended. After getting delivery, the complainant had not tried to cure the defects except lodging a complaint before the Vaikom police. It is not sure that whether he had consulted with any other workshop or the opposite party himself about the condition of the radiator. The only averment regarding this is that the vehicle was later repaired by Indus motors, Edappaly for rectifying the defects of radiator. But On perusal of Exhibit A5, the invoice issued by Indus motors, the date on which the vehicle was entrusted with them is01.04.2019.The date of delivery of the vehicle from the opposite party is14.03.2018. Thus it is evident that the complainant had been using the vehicle after taking delivery from the OP for one year and thereafter for some reason the radiator of the vehicle could have got defective and entrusted the same with Indus.
Here we find that a vehicle with radiator complaint and coolent leakage cannot be used for one year because the vehicle would stop on the way and would get overheated which may even lead to fire. So it is not believable that the complainant kept the vehicle idle for one year with such a risky complaint.
Moreover, the complainant has not taken any expert evidence to prove the contrary. Hence in the absence of any cogent evidence produced by the complainant to prove his case we find that the complainant has approached this commission not with clean hands and hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12th day of July, 2021.
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 :Sukumaran T.N.
Witness from the side of opposite party
Dw1 : Praveen Kumar G.
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
A1 : Copy of RC book (KL-05-R-5648)
A2 : Copy of estimate of repair dtd.14-03-2018 by opposite party
A3 : Copy of complaint dtd.17-03-18 before the Sub inspector of police.
A4 : Copy of acknowledgement receipt of petition dtd.17-03-18 by Vaikom
Police station
A5 : Bill dtd.01-04-19 by Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd.
A6 : Certificate dtd.17-09-19 by Indus Motors, Thalayolaparamb
A7 : Copy of petition dtd.08-04-19 before Vaikom Sub Inspector of Police.
A8 : Copy of acknowledgement receipt of petition dtd.08-04-19 by Vaikom
Police station
A9 : Copy of disposal dtd.12-04-19 between the complainant and opposite
Party
By Order
Senior Superintendent
