Kerala

Kannur

CC/76/2024

Sunil Kumar.M - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ragnesh Kumar.T - Opp.Party(s)

T.P.Hareendran

28 May 2024

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KANNUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/76/2024
( Date of Filing : 07 Feb 2024 )
 
1. Sunil Kumar.M
S/o Mthu,Mutti House,Panankavu, P.O.Chirakkal,kannur.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Ragnesh Kumar.T
S/o Raveendran,Remya Nivas,Muthappan Kari,Chavassery.P.O,Uliyil,Kannur.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. RAVI SUSHA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Moly Kutty Mathew MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Sajeesh. K.P MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 28 May 2024
Final Order / Judgement

SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite party to complete the repair works of the car bearing Reg.No. KL 59 G 6777 and handover the same to the complainant and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as the rent of the car he rented from 3rd party for his daily use, the loss of value sustained to the car, and compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and cost the proceedings to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.

The case of the complainant in brief

            The complainant is the RC owner of Nizan Sunni Car bearing Registration  No. KL 59 G 6777.  The said car met with an accident at Keechery and sustained damages to the car.  At first the car was taken to the police station and later it was brought to the workshop of Nizan Motors at Thazhe chovva.  But the manager of the workshop told the complainant that he had to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as repair charge.  In the meanwhile the OP contacted the complainant and told him that he was conducting a workshop at Palottupally, Mattannur and he had inspected the complainant’s car and he was ready to repair the car for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs.  Then the complainant approached the OP on 14/10/2022 at his workshop at Pallottupally and paid Rs.6,000/- to OP and to carry the car to the workshop of the OP.  Both the complainant and OP agreed to discuss the terms and conditions of the agreement dated on 07/11/2022.  As per the agreement the OP agreed to conducted the repair work of the car with perfection and without any delay for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakh and complete the repair works and deliver the car within 3 months from 07/11/2022.    On 07/11/2022 the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to OP towards the repair works and to pay another Rs.50,000/- on 25/11/2022.  It was also agreed that the remaining balance amount should be paid to the OP at the time of giving delivery of the car after completion of repair works.  After paying the 2nd installment the complainant visited the workshop of OP on 10/12/2022 the complainant found that the OP had not even started the repair works.  Moreover the complainant see his car kept outside the workshop open to sun and rains thereby decreasing the value of the vehicle day by day.  Then the complainant questioned the OP about this and he stated lame excuses.  In the meanwhile the OP shifted his workshop to Kolayad and took the car to that workshop.  The complainant submits that the car is kept in the custody of the OP and the complainant had to rent a car for his trips from his chicken stall at Puthiyatheru to his chicken farm at Taliparamba and for his personal use to spend at least a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- towards the rent of the car.  As a result of keeping of the car outside the work shop open  to sun and rain the value of the vehicle decreased and the complainant assess at least a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.  Then the complainant send a lawyer notice to OP on 17/11/2023 and the OP received the notice on 22/11/2023.  But he neither send a reply nor paid the compensation amount.  The act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Hence the complaint.

            After filing the complaint notice issued to OP.  The OP received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed version also.  The commission had to hold that the OP has no version as such in this case came to be proceed against the OP as set ex-parte.  

            Even though the OP has remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against the OP.  Hence the complainant was called up on to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.  Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce Ext.A1 and A5 documents.

            In Ext. A1 is the copy of lawyer notice issued by the complainant to OP dated 17/11/2023. Ext. A2 is the postal receipt dated 17/11/2023 and Ext.A3 is the acknowledgment card dated 22/11/2023.  Ext.A4 is the google pay print out dated 14/10/2022 and Ext. A5 is the google pay print out dated 25/11/2022.  It is clear that the OP is not completed the repair work of the car and not handover the vehicle to the complainant within the agreed time.  So the OP is directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.   As per the complaint complainant  stated that he take a taxi for his trip from his chicken stall at Puthiyatheru to his chicken  farm to Taliparamba and he spend at least a sum of Rs.2,80,000/-  towards the taxi charge.  But the complainant not produce any document to prove the same.  Therefore we hold that the OP is directed to complete the repair work of the car bearing Reg. No. KL 59 G6777 in a road worthy condition to the satisfaction of the complainant and handover the car to the complainant after deducting the amount already paid by the complainant to the OP (ie. Rs.6000+Rs.50,000+Rs.50,000) along with Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and loss of value sustained to the car and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to complete the repair work of the car bearing registration No. KL 59 G 6777 in a road worthy condition to the satisfaction of the complainant and hand over the car to the complainant as per the agreement after deducting the amount already paid by the complainant to OP.  (Total cost of repair the car Rs.2,00,000/-, the complainant paid Rs.6,000+ Rs.50,000+Rs.50,000) along with Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and loss of value sustained to the car and Rs.10,000/-  as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- carries 9% interest  per annum  from the date of order till realization.  Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019. 

Exts.

A1  - Copy of lawyer notice

A2- Postal receipt

A3– Acknowledgment card

A4– Google pay print out dated 14/10/2022

A5– Google pay print out dated 25/11/2022

Pw1- Complainant

 

        Sd/                                                                                  Sd/                                                      Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                            MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

                                               /Forwarded by order/

 

 

                                                  Assistant Registrar

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. RAVI SUSHA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Moly Kutty Mathew]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sajeesh. K.P]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.