BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 233/2002 Filed on 07.06.2002 Dated : 30.01.2010
Complainant:
Ramesh Kannan, residing at T.C No. 16/2888, Babu Bhavan, Kumarapuram, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. G.S. Raghunath) Opposite party:
R.P. Kumar, Managing Director, M/s Shyam Motors (P) Ltd., N.H Byepass Road, Eanchakkal, Karali, Pettah P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-24.
(By adv. P. Rajkumar)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 24.08.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30.12.2009, the Forum on 30.01.2010 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER Complainant is the registered owner of the Premier 118 NE Car bearing Reg. No. TCV 2529. The aforesaid car met with an accident on 28.06.2000 at Chavara, Kollam District. The opposite party approached the complainant to effect repairs to the vehicle. Opposite party promised the complainant that the repairs would be effected and the vehicle would be made roadworthy for a total charge of Rs. 30,000/- and that the same would be delivered to the complainant in pucca condition towards the end of August 2000. Believing the words of the opposite party the complainant entrusted the car to the opposite party on 05.07.2000 for effecting repairs. But in August 2000 when the complainant approached the opposite party for taking delivery of the vehicle as promised by the opposite party, the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant was shocked to find that no repair was effected at all, since the complainant was in urgent need of the vehicle, he handed over an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as demanded by the opposite party. In August 2001 the opposite party again demanded and received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant. Even then the opposite party did not repair the vehicle nor did he return the vehicle to the complainant till date. In addition to this the complainant was forced to spend an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards upholstery work. Complainant alleges that the opposite party committed gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not repairing the aforesaid car in pucca roadworthy condition after receiving the aforesaid amounts from the complainant towards charges for repairing the car and cost of spare parts etc. from the complainant. Opposite party filed version and in his version opposite party admitted that the complainant entrusted him the car for repairs in a totally damaged condition after it met with a major accident in which one person was killed. But the allegation that the opposite party promised to the complainant to do all the repair works to the car for a total charge of Rs. 30,000/- is absolutely false. In fact the total charges for repairs to the car agreed between the complainant and the opposite party is for Rs. 60,000/-. They admitted that the complainant has paid to the opposite party a total sum of Rs. 15,000/- in two instalments. But he has to pay Rs. 45,000/- as balance payment from the agreed rate of Rs. 60,000/-. Then only the work could be completed and the vehicle could be handed over to the complainant. Only after getting the balance amount from the complainant the remaining works can be done and vehicle could be delivered. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. In this case complainant has filed an amendment petition to amend the prayer (A) column of the complainant. As per the prayer of that I.A 31/08 incorporated value of the vehicle is Rs. 1,30,000/-. On that amendment the opposite party filed their additional version. In the version the opposite party stated that the complainant purchased the vehicle in the year 1996 by paying an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- is not true and devoid of any merit. No evidence to prove the same either through documents or orally. In this case complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 11 documents to prove his case. Power of Attorney Holder of opposite party has also filed affidavit and produced D1 series. Points that would arise for consideration are:- Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs.
Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party for repairing on 05.07.2000, at that time the opposite party promised to give the vehicle in pucca condition within one month. And for repairing the vehicle the opposite party received Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant on various occasions. But after completion of 2 years the opposite party did not effect any repairs to the vehicle and he did not return the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant alleges that the opposite party committed gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not repairing the vehicle after receiving the amounts. The main contention of the complainant is that the opposite party agreed to repair the vehicle for an amount of Rs. 30,000/-. To prove the contentions of the complainant he has filed proof affidavit and has been examined as PW1. From his side 11 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P11. Ext. P1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant for the acceptance of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 02.09.2000. Through this document complainant proved that he had paid Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party as the repairing charge of the vehicle. Ext. P2 is the receipt dated 07.08.2001 issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Ext. P3 is the copy of advocate notice dated 10.04.2002 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. P4 is the returned acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party. Ext. P5 is the copy of FIR in Crime No. 295/2000 of Chavara police station. From this document we can see that the above said vehicle had met with an accident and in that accident one person died. Ext. P6 is the copy of FIS in crime No. 295/2000. Ext. P7 is the copy of letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant's father. This letter is the advertisement of the opposite party's service station. Through this letter we can see that opposite party's workshop is an authorized service station of Maruti. Ext. P8 is the receipt issued by one Rajasekhar, Upholstery Works, Pettah, Tvpm to the complainant. This letter is the evidence that the complainant had paid Rs. 5,000/- on account of upholstery work of his vehicle bearing No. TCV 2529. Ext. P9 is the receipt dated 13.06.2000 issued by Trivandrum Auto Service for an amount of Rs. 228.20. Ext. P10 is the receipt dated 18.01.2002 issued by Speed Auto Services, Tvpm for an amount of Rs. 190/-. Ext. P11 is the receipt dated 18.01.2002 issued by Lekshmi Auto Electrical Works, Tvpm for Rs. 50/-. In support of the contentions of the opposite party the Power of Attorney Holder of the opposite party has filed proof affidavit and examined him as DW1. Through DW1 Ext. D1 series were marked. The opposite party argued that they never promised the complainant that the repair works would be done for a total charge of Rs. 30,000/-, as the car was in a totally damaged condition and the charges for repairs to the car agreed between the complainant and the opposite party is for Rs. 60,000/-. They admitted that the complainant has paid Rs. 15,000/- in two instalments. The complainant did not make any further payment. The opposite party submits that they have done more than 90% of the repair works in the vehicle by spending more than Rs. 45,000/-. The opposite party stated that the complainant has to pay Rs. 45,000/- as balance payment from the agreed rate of Rs. 60,000/-. Then only his work could be completed. Ext. D1 series are the documents relating to the aforesaid accident of the vehicle. The opposite party argued that at the time of entrusting the vehicle to them the vehicle was in a totally damaged condition. We have gone through the evidence, pleadings and documents produced by both the parties. In this case without inspecting the condition of the vehicle and ascertaining the work done by the opposite party we cannot get into a conclusion. The complainant had argued that the opposite party agreed to repair the vehicle for an amount of Rs. 30,000/-. But the complainant did not produce any document to support that contention. And opposite party submitted that he had agreed to repair the works for an amount of Rs. 60,000/-. The opposite party has not produced any agreement or any record to prove that contention. The opposite party also stated that he has done 90% of the repairing work and for that he had spent more than Rs. 45,000/-. To prove that statement he did not produce any document or he did not turn up to take an expert opinion to ascertain he charges of the work he had done. The complainant also did not take any steps to ascertain the work done by the opposite party to the vehicle or to ascertain the condition of the vehicle. The complainant in this case had not taken any steps to get back the vehicle. He has issued a notice even after lapse of 2 years from the date of entrustment. This case is a very old one. Neither the complainant nor the opposite party had taken any steps to appoint an expert commissioner. Without expert report we cannot decide the case beyond doubt. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of natural justice we find that it is reasonable to direct the opposite party to refund the amount received from the complainant and also return the vehicle to the complainant in the present condition or direct the opposite party to repair and return the vehicle in a roadworthy condition and accept the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed. In the result, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant and also return the vehicle to the complainant in the present condition or to repair the vehicle in a roadworthy condition and accept the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant if the complainant admits this suggestion. If the vehicle is not in the custody of the opposite party, opposite party shall pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of January 2010. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA : MEMBER jb O.P. No. 233/2002 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Ramesh Kannan II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Photocopy of receipt dated 02.09.2000 P2 - Photocopy of receipt dated 07.08.2001 P3 - Photocopy of advocate notice dated 10.04.2002. P4 - Acknowledgement card addressed to opposite party. P5 - Photocopy of F.I.R in Crime No. 295/2000 of Chavara Police station. P6 - Photocopy of the FIS in Crime No. 295/2000. P7 - Photocopy of letter issued by the opposite party. P8 - Original cash receipt. P9 - Receipt dated 13.06.2000 issued by Tvpm Auto Service for an amount of Rs. 228.20. P10 - Receipt dated 18.01.2002 issued by Speed Auto Services, Tvpm for an amount of Rs. 190/-. P11 - Cash Bill No. 481 dated 18.01.2002 issued by Lekshmi Auto Electrical Works,Tvpm for Rs. 50/-. III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : DW1 - Krishnan Nair IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : D1 - Photocopy of the documents relating to the aforesaid accident of the vehicle.
PRESIDENT | 
