IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of June 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 101//2022 (Filed on 10/05/2022)
Complainant : Ajith.V. Somanathan,
Vellappallil House,
Thottakkadu P.O,
Kottayam – 686 539.
(By Adv: Rohit Ajay)
Vs.
Opposite party : The Proprietor,
Vaikathappan Automobiles,
North Gate (Temple Road),
Vaikom – 686 141.
O R D E R
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
The complainant’s vehicle with reg. No KL-25-C-1516 met with an accident on 17-03-2022 and he entrusted the vehicle with the opposite party for the accidental repair on 18-03-2022. The bumper and the parts of the left side of the vehicle were damaged. After inspecting the vehicle the opposite party assured to give the vehicle after repair on the next day and asked the complainant to purchase the necessary parts. The opposite party further informed the complainant that altogether Rs.5,000/- would be needed for the repair works. Accordingly the complainant purchased the necessary parts and gave it to the opposite party on 18.03.2022 itself. But to his dismay the opposite party was not ready to finish the repair of vehicle within time. The tyre and suspension on the left side were removed and kept aside. Only due to the compulsion of the complainant the vehicle was delivered on assurance of good condition. But when the vehicle was driven by the complainant, he understood that severe damages were caused to the vehicle in the repair work of the opposite party. Moreover, the opposite party claimed Rs.10,800/- for repair and Rs.540/- for some additional parts. Thus the opposite party has done defective repair work and demanded more amount for the same. The complainant paid Rs.7,500/- and took the vehicle to another workshop and found that the tie rod end, balancing rod, damber bracket etc. were fitted wrongly. The complainant had to repair the said defects at his own expense. Thus he had to spent another Rs.3,000/-. This complaint is filed for compensation against the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the inordinate delay and the defects occurred in the repair and to get the extra amount of Rs.2,500/- which the opposite party had charged from the complainant along with Rs.4,500/- which he had to spent for alternate conveyance.
The opposite party appeared upon receipt of notice and filed version denying the allegations. The opposite party contended that the repair work needed 4 to 75 days to be completed as it was a major work. He had never told the complainant that the bill amount would be Rs. 5,000/- before knowing what all works need to be done for repairing. The complainant had agreed to the duration of the repair work and handed over the vehicle to the opposite party by noon on 18-03-2022. Spare parts required for finishing the work were bought and given to the opposite party on 18-03-2022 itself. But spare parts such as main leaf, 2nd leaf, tie road end, front glass, steering shock absorb, spring punch were brought by the complainant on 2 different dates. The complainant came to the workshop only when the opposite party informed that the work was finished and the vehicle was ready for delivery. The complainant took test drive the vehicle and being satisfied with the condition of the vehicle he took delivery by giving Rs. 7,500/- only. The opposite party gave a detailed work bill of the repair work of Rs.10,800/-and informed the complainant that the opposite party had purchased extra spare parts such as balance rod bush, 5 wheel nuts and plate bush which amounts to Rs.540/-. The complainant informed that he was short in money and gave only Rs.7,500/- on an assurance of giving the balance amount within 2 days but later when the opposite party called the complainant for the balance amount through another person who introduced the complainant to the opposite party, he was not ready to pay the amount. On 7.05.2022 the opposite party filed a complaint before SHO, Vaikom Police Station about the non-payment of balance amount and also filed a CMP before the Hon’ble JFM Court as CMP 1922/22 against the complainant for breach or trust and cheating. On getting knowledge of the above said cases, the complainant has filed this complaint with malafide intention to evade the payment. There was no unnecessary delay on the part of the opposite party and hence there is no deficiency of service and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed evidence affidavit and complainant filed documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 and A2. The opposite party also filed documents marked as Exhibits B1 to B4.
On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, we frame the issues as (1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ? and (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
POINTS 1 & 2
The complainant’s case is that he had entrusted his vehicle on 18/03/2022 with the opposite party which met with an accident on 17-03-2022. Though the opposite party agreed to finish the work by 19th for Rs.5,000/-, he gave delivery only after inordinate delay. Moreover, the opposite party demanded Rs.10,800/- and Rs.540/- against the promise made him. The complainant had to pay Rs.7,500/- but only after taking delivery he noticed that the vehicle was damaged and those complaints were not there at the time of giving the car to the opposite party. When asked the opposite party did not give a satisfactory answer or tried to rectify it. So he had to take the vehicle to another workshop incurring another Rs.3,000/- The complainant has produced only the bill of Rs.10,800/- given by the opposite party and the bill given by the second work shop of Rs.3,000/-. Though the complainant alleges that there was an accident on 17.03.2022, no evidence to show the date of accident. The vehicle given to the opposite party on 18.03.2022 and was delivered on the third day. As per the complainant’s case there is only two days’ delay. We don’t see any inordinate delay caused in the delivery of the vehicle.
The other allegation is that even after the repair works, the vehicle was still having complaints of steering wheel and pulling towards the left. This can be admitted as there is a bill produced dated 22.03.2022 from one Akshara Automobiles for “Tie rod end removing and resetting, Alignment checking, Balancing rod, Bush changing, Damber bracket cutting and rewelding.” The said workshop has charged Rs. 3,000/-for the works done by them vide Ext.A2. So we infer that there could be some defects in the repair works of the opposite party which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. The opposite party has produced B4 which is a copy of a complaint given by the opposite party against the complainant before the Honourable JFCM court, Vaikom under SS.406 and 420 IPC. The complaint is dated 28.05.2022. The contention of the opposite party is that in order to defend this case, the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Commission. But the complaint is seen filed before us on 10.05.2022. It is understood that the complainant has started the litigation and so the contention of opposite party seems an afterthought to defend this complaint.
As the complainant has failed to prove the delay in delivering vehicle and that the opposite party has initially informed the bill amount as Rs.5,000/- the relief with respect to those allegations cannot be allowed.
Hence we allow the complaint in part directing the opposite party to give the Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) which the complainant had to give for the second repair. The order shall be complied within 30 days failing which the award amount shall carry an interest @9%p.a from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of June, 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 :
Ext. A1 - Bill No.1678 dated 21/03/2022 for Rs.10,800/-
issued by the opposite party
Ext.A2 - Bill No.437 dated 22/03/2022 issued by Akshara
Automobile Work Shop, Thottakadu for Rs.3,000/-
Exhibits from the side of Opposite party :
Ext.B1 - Copy of detailed Work Bill No.1678 dated 21/03/2022
for Rs.10,800/- issued by the opposite party
Ext.B2 - Copy of lawyer notice dated 20/05/2022 issued by the
opposite party to the complainant demanding the balance amount
Ext.B3 - Copy of reply notice dated 02/06/2022 issued by the
advocate of the complainant to the opposite party
Ext.B4 - Copy of complaint filed by the opposite party against
the complainant before the Honourable JFCM Court, Vaikom
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
