DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Thursday the 30^th day of November 2023

CC.226/2016

Complainant

Faslu Rahman. P. K,

Pallikka Parambil (HO),

                  Pattarkulam,

Narukara. P. O,

PIN - 676122

Opposite Parties

                         Proprietor,

Makkah Centre for Car Maintenance,

Vayalkkara, Kodal Nadakkavu,

Patheerankaavu. P. O,

Calicut – 673019

                       (By Adv. Sri. Jalaludheen. N)

ORDER

By Sri.V.BALAKRISHNAN  - MEMBER

            This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The Innova Car with registration no. DL4CAE3112 owned by the complainant was handed over to the opposite party on 21/04/2016 for repairs. The display console issue was the main problem and warning light was on at that time. Mr.Yackoob the representative of the opposite party, inspected the vehicle and taken the complainant to the Manager of the firm. The Manager told that the issue was with the turbo charger of the vehicle and informed that best quality charger would have a price of Rs. 18,000/-. Later it was informed that there was no stock of turbo and to receive it from Delhi would take about 2 days. After 2 days the opposite party informed further that the cost of the turbo is around Rs. 23,000/-. They demanded Rs. 2,000/- as service charge if the car is taken back without repair. So left with no other alternative the complainant agreed to get the car repaired for Rs. 23,000/-. The repair work was prolonged and on 27/04/2016 the opposite party informed that the turbo was changed and all issues were settled. But, on inspection of the vehicle the issue with the display console was still there. Finally the vehicle was taken back on the next day after making payment and the complainant demanded the bill. But only a quotation was given instead of bill and informed that correct bill would be given on next day. Even though the opposite party was contacted on 03/05/2016 they refused to hand over the bill. On local enquiry he came to know that the cost of turbo charger is only Rs. 11,000/.

3. The opposite party had collected Rs. 23,000/- for the turbo charger which actually costs Rs. 11,000/- only and without rectifying the defects of the vehicle they handed over the car.
4.  In fact the complainant lost Rs. 25,000/- for the repair and about one week time. So the complainant has approached this Commission to issue a direction to the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the financial loss, hardship and mental agony suffered.
5. The opposite party filed the version. Almost all the averments in the version were denied by the opposite party. The Innova Car (DL4CAE3112) was brought to the work shop by the complainant on 21/04/2016. After preparing information sheet the vehicle was taken for inspection. After inspection the complainant was informed about the fact that the turbo of the vehicle was defective. The complainant informed that he would come within 2 days. Later the opposite party convinced the complainant about the problem in the vehicle and informed him that a good quality turbo would cost Rs. 20,000/- to 30,000/-. It was agreed to do the work with the turbo having a price of  Rs. 23,000/- and with a service charge of Rs. 2,000/-. The opposite party did not mislead the complainant or collected an excessive price for a cheap item. The turbo supplied to the complainant by the opposite party was of the best quality and it was also convinced earlier about its quality and price. The information to replace the turbo was given by the complainant only a few days after handing over the vehicle. In the meantime he was having enough time to enquire in the market regarding the price and quality of the turbo.
6. After handing over the vehicle the complainant came back to the work shop only after 3 days and understanding the nature of complaint and cost of the accessories again it was requested only after 2 days to do the repair works. So the delay in handing vehicle was only due to the delayed attitude of the complainant.
7. There is no cause of action for the complaint and the complainant is not at all entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.
8. The points that arise for determination in this case are;                                                                                                                                     1)Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the    part of the opposite party, as alleged?

              2) Reliefs and costs.

9. The complaint filed the affidavit Exts. A1 to A5 were marked. No evidence was let in by opposite party. The complainant was not present for hearing even though ample opportunities were given. Argument note was filed by the opposite party.
10. Point No.1: The specific case of the complainant is that the vehicle was handed over to opposite party to resolve the problem of Engine warning light of Display console and not to rectify any engine problem. Instead of rectifying the real problems the opposite party changed the turbo charger and collected exorbitant amount from him. Also the vehicle was kept in custody of opposite party from 21/04/2016 to 27/04/2016 without repairs and the vehicle was delivered back only on 28/04/2016. Ext. A1 is the vehicle information report issued by opposite party on 21/04/2016, Ext. A2 is the estimate of repair given on 20/04/2016 by opposite party instead of cash bill, Ext. A3 is the copy of certificate of registration of vehicle, Ext.A4 is the call details of mobile number of complainant and Ext. A5 is the copy of business card of General Manager of opposite party.
11. In the argument note filed the opposite party, it is contended that the complainant was well informed about the defects of vehicles and details of spare parts including the cost of the same. The complainant came to the work shop and information of work order was given only after 2 days. By the time he had enough time to enquire in market regarding price and quality of turbo. While handing over the vehicle, invoice of Rs. 25,000/- was given showing cost of turbo and service charges. There was no objection to the invoice by the complainant at that time and he had paid the amount after full satisfaction of the work done by the opposite party.
12. According to the complainant the main allegation against opposite party is that he unnecessarily replaced the turbo and that too with a low cost one. To prove this allegation, what is produced by him is only the Exts. A1 to A5. There is nothing shown as a documentary evidence to prove that the cost of turbo collected was exorbitant and the work attended to change the turbo was unnecessarily done. It is stated in the affidavit by the complainant that such a conclusion was arrived at based on the statement of work shop people who attended the work of vehicle soon after getting it back from the opposite party. But there was no attempt on part of complainant to summon that work shop people as witness. Also to prove the correct market rate of standard quality turbo, there was no quotations or supporting evidences are produced by the complainant.
13. It is well settled that in consumer case, the onus of proving unfair trade practice or deficiency of service is on the complainant. But the complainant failed to do so.
14. Ext. A4 is the call records and the same only show that there were interactions with complainant and opposite party. It is not an indication that there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on part of opposite party.
15. From the available evidence there is no proof at all that the repair work done for the vehicle was in a defective way and the opposite party had collected excess amount for spare parts.
16. To sum up, in the absence of any proof regarding any defective repair works or that a higher amount was claimed by the opposite party than the standard market rate, for spare parts, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged is not established and consequently the complainant is not eligible to claim any compensation from the opposite party. 
17. Point No. 2: In view of the findings on the above points, the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for and the complaint is only to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30^th day of November, 2023.

Date of Filing: 26.05.2016

                                           Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                                Sd/-

                                    PRESIDENT                                            MEMBER                                     MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Vehicle information report issued by opposite party on 21/04/2016.

Ext.A2 – Estimate of repair given on 20/04/2016 by opposite party instead of cash bill.

Ext.A3 – Copy of certificate of registration of vehicle.

Ext.A4 – Call details of mobile number of complainant.

Ext.A5 – Copy of business card of General Manager of opposite party.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

Nil.

                                                       Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

                                              PRESIDENT                                       MEMBER                                             MEMBER

True Copy,

                                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                 Assistant Registrar