R.P.Rajendran V/S Ramachandran Pillai.P.K - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

StateCommission

287/2007

Ramachandran Pillai.P.K - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.P.Rajendran - Opp.Party(s)

N.Premkumar

12 Oct 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. 287/2007

(Arisen out of Order Dated 15/05/2007 in Case No. 105/2002 of District Pathanamthitta)

1. Ramachandran Pillai.P.K

Ushavilasam Veedu,Cherukulanji P.O,Ranni,Pathanamthitta

BEFORE:
	SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR PRESIDING MEMBER

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.287/2007

JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER

Ramachandran Pillai.P.K.

Ushavilasam Veedu,

Cherukulanji P.O, Ranni, -- APPELLANT

Pathanamthitta District,

Pin: 689 673.

(By Adv.Jaideep G.Nair)

Vs.

P.R.Rajendran, Proprietor

Deepa Automobiles,

(Maruthi Service Centre)

Mammukku, Ranni, -- RESPONDENT

Pathanamthitta District,

Pin: 689 673.

JUDGMENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER

It is against the dismissal of the complaint in OP.105/02 by the CDRF; Pathanamthitta that the present appeal is filed by the complainant calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.

2. For a fair disposal of the appeal, it is necessary that the facts of the case are to be re-capitulated and the same are given below. That the complainant had approached the Forum stating that his Maruthi Car bearing Registration No. MH 01-R-924 met with an accident on 4.3.02 and his wife was seriously injured. The complainant states that he was also wounded and asked a relative to tow the car to the nearby police station and thereafter the car was taken to the police station by the opposite party as requested by the relative of the complainant. The complainant’s further case is that he had paid Rs.750/- to the opposite party and as asked by the police officials, he had asked him to remove the stepini and battery from the vehicle as there was a chance of theft of spare parts from the vehicle. The complainant had asked the opposite party to remove the above parts and deposit the same in his brother in law’s hotel which is very near to the police station. The complainant has alleged that instead of taking those items to the place where he had requested, the respondent had taken the stepini and battery in his custody against the desire of the complainant. It is also stated by the complainant that though he had requested to get back the battery and stepini the respondent/opposite party did not do so as the complainant was not willing to give the vehicle for repair to the opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service in not returning the stepini and battery the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to return the stepini and battery along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.2000/-.

3. The opposite party in his version contended that the complaint was not maintainable though he had admitted that on 4.3.02 at 11 AM, a person by name Sandeep came to his workshop and asked to tow the vehicle to the police station. It was denied that he had taken the stepini and battery from the vehicle and the complainants vehicle was repaired in his workshop. Submitting that there was no deficiency in service he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. The evidence consisted of the testimony of PW1 to PW3 and Exts. A1 to A8(a). On the side of the opposite party, the opposite party was examined as DW1.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted before us that the Forum below was not right in dismissing the complaint where as it had ample evidence before it to allow the complaint. It is his case that the opposite party had taken away the stepini and battery from the vehicle and that the Forum below ought to have held that the complainant has complete evidence to prove the loss sustained due to the opposite party’s actions. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the opposite party’s demand was to give the repairing work to him and it was only because of the fact that the complainant had not given the repair works to him that he had removed the stepini and battery of the vehicle by which act the complainant had suffered mental agony and other inconvenience. The learned counsel invited our attention to the fact that the opposite party had released the battery and stepini subsequent to the filing of a criminal complaint by the complainant before the police officer.

6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the vehicle of the complainant/appellant had met with an accident on 4.3.02 and that the vehicle was towed by the opposite party to the police station on request by a relative of the complainant. It is also seen that the complainant had requested to take the battery and stepini from the vehicle to be entrusted to the Hotel run by the brother-in-law of the complaint. The opposite party would argue that he had not taken away the battery and stepini and that he had not committed any deficiency in service and the Forum below had rightly dismissed the complaint.

7. On an appreciation of the facts and circumstances revealed from the complaint, version and other oral evidence, we find that the complainant’s case that the stepini and battery were taken away by the opposite party is more believable and acceptable. It is also to be found that the opposite party had released the battery and stepini on a subsequent date consequent to the filing of a criminal complaint against the opposite party and in such a circumstance we feel that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which had put the complainant to mental agony, stress and strain and also to other difficulties.

8. In the backdrop of the above, we feel that the complainant has to be compensated for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party. We feel that a sum of Rs.5000/- will be just and proper to be ordered as compensation and the opposite party is directed to pay the sum to the complainant with costs of Rs.2000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the said amount shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Thereby the opposite party/respondent is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the complainant is entitled to 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment.