By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant purchased one DCM Toyota pick up van 1993 model and registration No.KL-8B/8969. He was driving the vehicle himself. When he found that the oil consumption of the vehicle was highly increased the vehicle was entrusted to the respondents as they were the recognized service establishment. The respondent inspected the vehicle and informed that there has some depreciation of the component of the vehicle and they have to be replaced. The complainant agreed and the vehicle was taken possession by the respondent by job card No.50053. When it was informed that the work has been completed the complainant paid Rs.16,199.20 for the replacement of the components and Rs.6300/- as labour charges. The vehicle was taken back by the complainant. The respondent told to bring back the vehicle to them after running 2000 kms. But there was no decrease in the oil consumption and the fact was informed to the respondents. They replied that the oil consumption will be reduced after running 2000 kms. The vehicle was again brought to the respondents and they charged Rs.1121/- for change of oil and Rs.205/- as service charge. The vehicle was again brought to the respondents on 3.12.97 due to increase in the oil consumption. The foreman of the respondent inspected the vehicle and informed the complainant that the engine has to be repaired again for a perfect condition. The respondent again charged Rs.3900/- for replacement of spare parts and service charge. Even if all these repairs were made when the vehicle has started, there was incessant smoke due to the defect of injection pump and it has to be replaced. So the vehicle was again entrusted to the respondents. But the smoke did not reduce even after the rectification. The respondents did not repair the vehicle properly. An expert by name Jose N. Mathew inspected the vehicle on 24.1.98 and he confirmed that the repair has not been done properly. The complainant therefore purchased a new clutch disk for Rs.2819/- and fitted and paid Rs.500/- as labour charges. The complainant could not use the vehicle for about 51 days due to the frequent repair by the respondent. But the respondents have not repaired the vehicle properly. There is deficiency in service in repairing the vehicle and the complainant suffered a financial loss of Rs.27,770/- and Rs.3319/- for the charge of clutch disc including labour charge. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The respondents filed a counter statement to the following effect. The complainant’s vehicle was old 1993 model. The vehicle has developed engine troubles due to wear and tear. When the vehicle was brought on 17.6.97 various parts of the engine has got worn out and several parts require replacement or reshaping. The overhauling of the vehicle as desired by the complainant was done perfectly in all respects. The engine rebuilding is highly sophisticated technical process. The overhauling work was done along with other works and the complainant was charged for replacement of spare parts and labour charges. Since the production of DCM Toyota vehicle are stopped in India long back the supply of spare parts was scarce and it was difficult to get all the required spare parts. The respondents could not complete the work using whatever spare parts available in the market. This certainly affects the quality of the work for which no workshop owner can be find fault with. The complainant was asked to bring the vehicle after a running of 2000 kms. for inspection in order to ensure that the oil filter which would have got clogged by deposit of few metal particles is changed and fresh oil is filled along with adjustment of valves etc. The complainant has never informed that there was any excess oil consumption. When the vehicle was brought by the complainant on 3.12.97 the vehicle was carefully examined and it was found that the engine of the vehicle suffered seizure of three piston and this has resulted in the pre-nature failure of the engine. The life of the new or rebuilt engine largely depends on the way in which it is driven during the running period. The engine was again dismantled by the respondents re-fixed again and charged Rs.3900/-. At the time of delivery of the vehicle the vehicle had no complaint of excess oil consumption. And the vehicle was delivered in good condition. The respondents also submitted that if the alleged complaints of the vehicle are actual they are prepared to look into such complaints and try to rectify it if the complainant supplies spare parts and the consumables necessary for carrying out the work. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complainant entitled to get the amount requested for?
(2) Is there any deficiency in service in rebuilding the engine
of the vehicle by the respondents?
(3) If so, reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P13, Ext. R1, Ext. C1 the commission report, oral testimonies of PW1, RW1 and RW2.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Points: The complainant entrusted his vehicle to the respondent when he found the oil consumption highly increased. He has also agreed to replace some of the components and he paid Rs.16,990/- for the replacement of the components and Rs.6300/- as labour charges. The vehicle was taken back by the complainant. But the defect was not cured. There found no decrease in the oil consumption. It was assured that the oil consumption will be reduced after running 2000 kms. Even though the vehicle was brought back to the respondents several times the defect was not perfectly cured. Meanwhile an expert Jose.N. Mathew inspected the vehicle and confirmed that the repair has not been done properly. Ext. P7 is the report furnished by Sri. Jose N. Mathew. Since the vehicle was brought to the respondents now and then the complainant could not use it for 51 days. The complainant claims that he is entitled to get compensation for the loss.
7. Ext. P7 is the report furnished by Sri. Jose.N. Mathew the surveyor and loss assessor wherein he has stated that his assumption is purely based on his external inspection of the vehicle, as per verification of repair bills discussion with local repairers and also from his experiences and hence in this respect inspection of the engine after dismantling is required to have a confirmed conclusion. But this was not done. So Ext. P7 cannot be taken as an expert opinion.
8. Ext. C1 is the report furnished by the expert commissioner. It has been clearly stated in the Ext. C1 report that respondent made careless handling on the engine of the complainant’s vehicle during repair. This is the reason for hammering dents of engine heat. He has concluded the report by stating that a vehicle cannot be operated by an engine with above state of conditions.
9. The respondents have filed a detailed objection against Ext. C1. They have stated in their objection that many of the findings of the commissioner are erroneous conflicting and biased. They have also stated that the engine was not fully dismantled by the commissioner only head was removed.
10. The expert commissioner is examined as RW2. On cross examining him he has deposed that “Engine hammering dent (In Malayalam words)
(In Malayalam words)
.” He has further stated that “engine head portion
Engine
Report a vehicle cannot be operated by an engine with the above stated condition report findings report
bearing work (In Malayalam words) misalignment
(In Malayalam words) .” The expert commissioner being a technically qualified person has reported the actual cause of defect in the repair work performed by the respondents and the points raised in the objections are not sufficient to set aside the Ext. C1 report. Hence the Ext. C1 is accepted as evidence.
11. It is evident from Ext. C1 that there is deficiency in service by the respondents in curing the defects pointed out with the complainant’s vehicle which was entrusted with them. The respondents have stated in their counter that the production of DCM Toyota vehicle are stopped in India long back and it was difficult to get all the required spare parts. So the respondents should not have undertaken the rebuilding task when they are aware that spare parts are scarce. On concluding their version the respondents have stated that there were some defects in the rebuilding and if the alleged complaints of the vehicle is actual they are prepared to look into such complaints and try to rectify if the complainant supplies the spare parts and consumables necessary for carry out the work. At the same time they are aware that it is impossible to get spare parts. They are only shifting their responsibility into the complainants shoulder. This also attribute to their deficiency in service in handling the work entrusted to them for which they have to compensate.
12. The complainant spent Rs.27,770/- as charges of spare parts and also Rs.3319/- for charges of replacement of clutch disk. Even though he claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation there is no evidence to claim such a huge amount. So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.31,089/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
13. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.31,089/- (Rupees thirty one thousand and eighty nine only) and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 16th day of February 2012.
