DISTRICT CONSUEMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28th day of February 2009 .

Present : Smt. H. Seena, President

: Smt. Preetha G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.68/2008

Shanavas

S/o. Muhammed

Pollakkunnan House

Thiruvizhamkunnu

Mannarkkad

Palakkad. - Complainant

(Adv.A. Santhosh )

V/s

Proprietor

The Bharath Engine Reboring

43/709, Coimbatore Road

Palakkad. - Opposite party

O R D E R

By Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

Brief facts of the case are as follows

The complainant, the owner of “Tata Sierra” No. TN 37 E 1234, approached the opposite party for repairing the engine of the vehicle. The complainant entrusted the vehicle to Opposite party for the same. On 17.04.2007 the Opposite party informed the Petitioner that the engine work has been completed and now the engine is in good condition. The Opposite party offered one year guarantee for their work. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.13,550/- towards the engine work and the Opposite party had issued bills for the said amount. After making the payment he had taken back the vehicle. After that the complainant found that the engine was too hot while it was starting and due to this the functioning of AC also stopped. Though the engine was damaged within the guarantee period, the Opposite party refused to do anything to cure the defects. When the complainant asked the Opposite party for curing the defect the Opposite party behaved very badly . The engine damage was caused only due to the negligence of the Opposite party. Complainant sent a lawyer notice. Opposite party received the notice but did not reply. The deeds of the Opposite party caused financial loss and mental agony to the

- 2 -

complainant. Hence this complainant for seeking an order to directing the Opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.13,550/- as the expenses spent by the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with the cost of the case proceedings.

The complaint was admitted. Opposite party notice served but not appeared before the forum. Hence the name called and set ex-parte.

Complainant filed affidavit and marked the documents as Exhibit P1 and P2.

The issued to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the side of the Opposite party and

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

We, perused the relevant records. It is evident from the P1 is that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.13,550/- as the service charge of the engine work. One year guarantee was also endorsed on the back side of the receipt. But when the complainant approached the Opposite party for curing the defects of the vehicle within the guarantee period Opposite party refused to cure the defect of the engine. So it is very clear that there is deficiency of service on the side of the Opposite party. Further the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged

In the result, compliant is allowed. We direct the Opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.13,550/- which is spent by the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of the case proceedings.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th day of February 2009.

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

- 3 -

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1. Ext. A1 series- Quotation of The Bharath Engine Reboring

2. Ext A2 series – Cash/Credit bIll of The Bharath Engine Reboring

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite party

Nil

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent