Date of Filing : 03.06.2022
Date of Disposal : 30.12.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L., ......MEMBER-II
CC. No.150/2022
THIS FRIDAY, THE 30th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
Mr.K.Sivakumar, S/o.Kuppusamy,
Flat No.F1, 1st Floor, No.453,
Sanjos Ramamurthy Plaza,
TI Cycles Road, Ambattur, Chennai 53. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
Mr.Anand Purushothaman,
Proprietor, Car Care,
No.34/35, G.N.H., 2nd Street, Varadarajapuram,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 053. …..opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.S.ShivaKumar, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : exparte
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 26.12.2022 in the presence of M/s.S.ShivaKumar Advocate, counsel for the complainant and the opposite party was set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in not repairing his car properly along with a prayer to return the car bearing No.TN 18-Y-7804 after completing the repairs work in good condition and to examine the repairs with another mechanic with in a time frame and to pay a sum Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant along with cost of the complaint.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he owned a Tata Nano Car bearing No.18-Y-7804 for his own use and he was using the same for more than 10 years. On 23.04.2022 morning when he went to start the car it did not gett started due to some problem. Hence he called the opposite party for starting and for checking up the issue in the car. After checking, the opposite party had opined that dynamite and belt had been damaged and it could be corrected only in the workshop and the complainant also accepted for the same. After one week of taking the car from the complainant’s house, the opposite party informed that to do repairs it would cost Rs.4,000/- and the same was also paid by the complainant through Phone Pay to the opposite party’s bank account. When complainant went on 10.05.2020 to the opposite party’s workshop he was shocked and surprised to see that the opposite party has not done the repair work and the car was totally dismantled and parts of the car were spread on the road. Immediately when the complainant asked, the opposite party told that it was waste of time to do the repair work and also asked to sell the car. Due to the delay in repairing and handing over the car by the opposite party the complainant suffered heavy mental agony and monetary loss and hence he issued a legal notice to the opposite party dated 19.05.2022 demanding to return the car after completing the repair work within three days from the date of receipt of notice. Finally on 27.05.2022 the opposite party called the complainant informing that the repair work was over and asked to come and take the car. The complainant had told to him that he would bring another mechanic to check the vehicle and only thereafter he would take delivery of the car for which the opposite party shouted at complainant in filthy language and objected to bring another mechanic for checking the vehicle. Since dispute had arose the complainant lost faith on the opposite party and only for his satisfaction he told to bring another mechanic to check the vehicle for which opposite party had not accepted and till this date the vehicle was only with the opposite party without doing repair work by him. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs as mentioned below;
To return the car bearing No.TN 18-Y-7804 after completing the repair work in good condition and examining with another mechanic with in a time frame;
To pay a sum Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant along with cost of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A9. In spite of sufficient opportunities and notice the opposite party did not appear before this Commission and hence he was called absent and set ex-parte on 20.10.2022 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.
Points for consideration:
Whether the complainant is successful in proving the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not carrying out the repairs properly in his TATA NANO CAR bearing No.TN 18 Y 7804?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point:1
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Registration Book of Tata Nano Car bearing No.TN18-Y-7804 was marked as Ex.A1;
Payment of repairing expenses to the opposite party was marked as Ex.A2;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 19.05.2022 was marked as Ex.A3;
Returned cover with an endorsement refused was marked as Ex.A4;
Whatsapp messages was marked as Ex.A5;
Call history for calling the opposite party was marked as Ex.A6;
Photo of the workshop and car kept outside was marked as Ex.A7;
The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the Tata Nano Car used by the complainant was given for repairs to the opposite party on 23.04.2022 with complaints of Dynamyte and Belt damaged. However, the car was not repaired by the opposite party though the repair cost was paid by the complainant. When the complainant enquired the opposite party on 10.05.2022 the opposite party replied that it is waste of time to do the repair work and advised the complainant to sell the car. Thereby the complainant was put to severe mental agony as he was using the car for more than 10 years and has sentiment and attachment over the car. Hence the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 19.05.2022 demanding to return the car along with a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and on seeing the notice the opposite party asked the complainant to come and take the car stating that he had completed the repairs. When the complainant indented for checking the car repair works with another mechanic he shouted on the complainant in filthy language. Thus the learned counsel appearing for the complainant sought for complaint to be allowed as paryed for.
On perusal of records and pleadings this commission comes to the conclusion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reason that it is even admitted by the counsel for the complainant that the car at present was returned to the complainant. Further for the allegation that the car was not properly repaired by the opposite party, no proof was submitted and hence the said allegation was not proved by the complainant. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that they have spent around Rs.12,000/- for repairing the vehicle after the car was taken from the opposite party’s workshop also could not be believed for the reason that no invoice was submitted by the complainant for the expenses made by him. In such circumstance mere allegation that the opposite party returned the car without repairs with an ill motive to make the complainant to sell the car to him could not be accepted. Further it is seen that the complainant’s car was 10 years old and there is every chance for normal wear and tear occurred to the vehicle. Thus in the circumstances when It is not established by the complainant that what repairs are required to be done by the opposite party, what repairs he had done and what repairs he left out, this commission could not come to a conclusion that the complainant has proved his allegations by admissible evidence as alleged by him in the complaint. Mere reason that opposite party did not appear, cannot entitle the complainant to get relief against him. Thus the point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite party and as against the complainant.
Point No.2:
As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, he is not entitled any reliefs as claimed in the complaint from the opposite party. Thus the point is answered is accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 30th day of December 2022.
-Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 ............... Registration Certificate. Xerox
Ex.A2 ............... Payment of repairing expenses to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A3 19.05.2022 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A4 ............. Cover returned with an endorsement refused. Xerox
Ex.A5 ............ Whatsapp messages. Xerox
Ex.A6 ............... Call history for calling opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A7 ............. Photos of the opposite party’s workshop and the car kept outside. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party:-
Nil
-Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
