KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 201/11

JUDGMENT DATED : 11.10.11

PRESENT:

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR         :  MEMBER

James Varghese

S/o Varghese, Thoompumkal House,     :   APPELLANT 

Kattappana P.O., Ambalakkavala,

Idukki District.

(By Adv. Narayan R.)

Vs

The Proprietor

Masters Automobile Workshop,

Sagara Junction, Kattappana P.O.,          :   RESPONDENT

Idukki District.

( By Advs. V.S. Bhasurendran Nair & M. Kesavan Kutty Nair)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR     :  MEMBER

It is being aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint in
CC No. 114/10 by the CDRF, Idukki that the present appeal is filed by the complainant calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability and legality of the order passed by the Forum below.

2.      The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is the owner of a Maruti Alto Car and that the vehicle had met with an accident on 1.06.2009 and it was entrusted with the opposite party for repairs and that the spare parts were purchased by the complainant himself. It is further stated that the opposite party had received Rs.23,000/- for the repairs of the vehicle and Rs.20,000/- for painting the vehicle. It is the case of the complainant that there was a delay of 3 ½ months in repairing and handing over the vehicle and also that when the vehicle was delivered, the air conditioner was not working properly and after a lapse of time it was found that the paint was faded and though the opposite party had agreed to repaint the vehicle at the interference of the President of All Kerala Automobiles Workshop, the opposite party failed in repainting the vehicle. The complaint was filed for directions to the opposite party to repaint the vehicle with quality paint or in the alternative to pay Rs.20,000/- along with Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost.

3.      Resisting the complaint the opposite party filed version, wherein it was contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in repairing and painting the vehicle. It is the very case of the opposite party that the complainant had taken the vehicle expressing utmost satisfaction and also that the complaint was raised after a laps of 6 months from the date of delivery. The opposite party further submitted that the complainant had received the entire amount of repairs from the insurance company and submitting that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1. The Commissioner who inspected the vehicle was examined as PW2, and Exts. P1 and P2 were marked on the side of the complainant. The opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. R1 and R2 were marked. The Forum below appointed a commissioner to inspect the vehicle and the commission report was marked as Ext. C1.

5.      Heard both sides.

6.      The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below dismissing the complaint is without appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case.
It is his very case that the Forum below ought to have found that the peeling and fading of the paint was due to lack of good workmanship and also due to low quality of paint used. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the distance covered by the vehicle since repairs cannot be a ground to exonerate the opposite party from the negligence and deficient application of paint in the vehicle. The delay in handing over the vehicle was also a ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is his case that the opposite party took inordinate delay in repairing and painting the vehicle though the spare parts were purchased and handed over to the opposite party in time. Relying on the Commission report, the learned counsel submitted that the Forum below ought to have allowed the complaint in toto.

7.      On the other hand, the findings and conclusions were supported by the learned counsel who appeared for the respondent/opposite party. It is his case that the complainant had approached the Forum with unclean hands as it is only after 6 months that the complainant came with the complaint of fading of paint in the vehicle. It is also submitted that the vehicle met with another accident after the repairs of the vehicle, which was admitted by the complainant himself while giving evidence as PW1. He has also argued that the commissioner was only an advocate, who could not find out the reason for the peeling of paint and also that the commissioner had not noticed the distance covered by the vehicle after repairs and delivery of the vehicle to the complainant. It is strongly argued by the learned counsel that the Forum below has appreciated the entire facts and circumstances in the correct perspective and passed the order which is only to be upheld.

8.      On hearing the learned counsels and also perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of both parties that the vehicle had met with an accident and the vehicle was repaired and painted by the opposite party. It is seen that the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle expressing satisfaction.  The complainant had also admitted that the vehicle had met with a second accident. From records it is found that the complainant had made complaints regarding low quality of paint to the opposite party only after 6 months. It is further found that PW2 the commissioner has stated that he did not notice, how many kilometers the vehicle had run after the painting and also where from the paint was purchased. The Forum below has found that the complainant was unable to establish his case that the opposite party had used low quality paints and it was due to the said low quality paints that the fading and peeling of the paint had occurred in the vehicle. We find that the Forum below had appreciated all the facts and circumstances in detail while disposing the complaint. It is found that the order is a well considered one and there are no convincing and cogent grounds to interfere with the findings and conclusions of the Forum.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

The office is directed to return the LCR to the Forum below along with the copy of this order.

S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR:  MEMBER

DA