D.O.F. 17.05.2012 D.O.O. 28.07.2012 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this the 28th day of July, 2012. C.C.No.155/2012 P.V. Pradeepkumar, ‘Thanal’, Nr. Sree Narayana Mandir, : Complainant NH-17, Thrichambaram, Taliparmaba – 670 141 Proprietor, Autocross, Katti Complex, : Opposite Party Nr. R.T. Office, Manna, Taliparamba. O R D E R Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay `10,655 as compensation. The complainant’s case is that he has done wheel alignment, correction and tyre change of his Indica car having No.KL-13T. 770 from opposite party’s workshop on 10.03.2012 after giving `350 as charge and had taken the vehicle to his house. But after some hours it was seen that there was no air in the two tyres of the vehicle and it was not in a moving condition. The complainant contacted the opposite party as soon as he noticed the same, but they were not responded. Soon the complainant contacted another mechanic and examined the tyre, and noticed that a puncture on a particular position of the tyre which was caused from the opposite party’s workshop and hence the complainant issued a registered notice to opposite party, but they kept mum eventhough they have received the same. Because of the deficient service of opposite party the complainant has suffered financial as well as physical and metal hardship. Hence this complaint. The opposite party has not entered appearance eventhough they received the notice issued by the Forum. So the opposite party was called absent and set exparty. The main point to be decided in this case is that whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The evidence in the above case consists of the chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 to A4. The complainant contended that due to the deficient service of opposite party the two tyres of his vehicle become punctured and he has suffered loss of `10,655. To prove his case he has produced bill for `350 dated 10.03.2012 issued by opposite party, copy of notice issued to 1st opposite party, postal acknowledgment cards and postal receipts. Ext.A1 job sheet shows that the complainant has entrusted his vehicle to opposite party on 10.03.2012 for wheel alignment, correcting and tyre changing and received `350 as charges. The complainant contended that the tyre of the vehicle become punctured due to deficient service of opposite party and the defect was cured by giving `250. There is no contra evidence before us and the opposite party has not turned up before the Forum. The opposite party has not issued any reply to the letter issued by the complainant. This itself is unfair practice on the part of opposite party. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party for which they are liable to give `600 to the complainant along with `2000 as compensation and cost and order passed accordingly. In the result complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund `600 (Rupees Six Hundred only) along with `2000 (Rupees Two Thousand only) as compensation and cost within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Dated this the 28th day of July, 2012. Sd/- Sd/- President President APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Bill dated 10.03.2012. A2. Copy of notice dated 13.03.2012.. A3. Postal receipt. A4. Acknowledgment. Exhibits for the opposite party Nil Witness examined for the complainant Nil Witness examined for opposite party Nil /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT | 
