IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.116/08 Between: Varghese Philipose, Narakathinal kuzhiyil, Vettpram, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. T. Harikrishnan) ...... Complainant. And: Rajesh, Satheesh Bhavanam, Azhoor, Pathanamthitta. (Proprietor, R.R. Automobiles, Kumbazha, Pathanamthitta). (By Adv.R. Shanmukhan) ...... Opposite party. O R D E R Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of the complaint in brief is as follows: The complainant is the owner of KL-3/A-5549 Ambassador Nova Car. Opposite party is the owner of an automobile workshop named R.R. Automobiles. On 12.5.2008 the complainant had entrusted his above said vehicle to the opposite party for the patch works and full body painting. The opposite party agreed to return the car on 25.5.2008, after completing all the repairing and painting works of the vehicle and also agreed to complete the painting work for Rs.8,000/- and patch work for Rs.5,000/-. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.9,500/- as an advance to the opposite party. On 25.5.2008 the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the vehicle repaired, but the opposite party had not done any repairing or painting of the complainant’s vehicle. The complainant already informed the opposite party that his vehicle is used for taking the school students and he needed the vehicle on 1st June onwards. The opposite party delayed the repairing on one or other pre-text and the complainant hired a rent a car for taking the school students. 3. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party several time for getting the vehicle repaired. But the opposite party threatened and dishonoured the complainant. During the first week of July, the complainant approached opposite party for taking the vehicle for repairing to another workshop, but the opposite party did not allow the complaint for that. After that, on 6.7.2008 the complainant filed a complaint before the police and as per the direction of police the opposite party returned the vehicle without completing all the works and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the opposite party. After that the opposite party had issued a bill for an amount of Rs.20,950/- to the complainant. According to the complainant, he is not liable to pay this bill amount and the delay caused by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and due to the delay the complainant was compelled to spent an amount of Rs.7,000/- for hiring the service of a rent a car. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the compensation for his mental agony, financial loss and other inconveniences sustained to him. Hence he filed the complaint for getting an order for allowing this reliefs. The complainant prays for granting the reliefs. 4. The opposite party has filed a version stating the following contentions: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant entrusted the car for full body patch work and for body painting. The opposite party had prepared a work estimate for Rs.20,950/- and the complainant agreed the estimate amount and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as an advance. But the complainant did not pay any advance amount as agreed. Even then by believing the words of the complainant, the opposite party had started the repairing works of the complainant’s vehicle. After completing all the repairing work the opposite party informed the complainant about the completion of work and for taking the vehicle after paying the repairing charges. But the complainant did not turned up and he threatened the opposite party for getting the vehicle without paying the repairing charges. After that the complainant filed a complaint before the C.I of Police, Pathanamthitta and on the basis of the understanding made before the C.I, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.9,000/- and agreed to pay the balance amount within one week and the vehicle was returned to the complainant. The opposite party has not charged anything other than the estimate and the opposite party is entitled to get the balance repairing charges from the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for in the complaint and there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. Therefore the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. The points for consideration in this complaint are: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Relief & Costs? 6. The evidence of this case consists from the side of the complainant is his proof affidavit and one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit the complainant was examined as PW1 and the document produced is marked as Ext.A1. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of opposite party. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. 7. Point Nos. 1 to 3:- The complainant’s case against the opposite party is deficiency in service and negligence in the repairing and painting works and the delay of returning the complainant’s vehicle. Due to the said deficiency in service, he had suffered lot and he is entitled to get compensation and other reliefs. 8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and the Ext.A1 marked. Ext.A1 is the cash bill dated 5.7.2008 for Rs.17,450/- issued by the opposite party. The opposite party’s counsel has cross-examined PW1. 9. The opposite party contended that he had completed all the works as agreed by the complainant. After completing the work, the opposite party informed the complainant to take back the vehicle after paying the repairing charges. But the complainant was not ready to pay the repairing charges, which caused delay in returning the vehicle. So there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party and opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 10. In order to prove the opposite party’s contentions there is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of opposite party. 11. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had entrusted his vehicle to opposite party for repairing, painting and patch works. On a perusal of Ext.A1, it is seen that the vehicle was entrusted to the opposite party on 12.5.2008. Ext.A1 bill was issued on 5.7.2008 i.e. complainant’s vehicle was returned on 5.7.2008 after repairing. At the time of cross-examination, the complainant stated as follows:- “Ext.A1 {]ImcapÅ XpI FXrI£n¡v \ÂInbn«nÃ. ImcWw ]dª ]WnIÄ Aà sNbvXncn¡p¶Xv. ]dª ]WnIÄ sNbvXXpw CÔ. At the time of entrusting the vehicle for repairing, all the workshop will prepare a work estimate and a copy of it will be given to the owner of the vehicle. But in this case, no such work estimate is produced from either side for proving the works for which the complainant entrusted his vehicle to the opposite party. Ext.A1 shows the description of works. But there is no evidence to evaluate the works done. In the circumstances, we are not in a position to ascertain the quality, quantity and nature of repairing works done by the opposite party to the complainant’s vehicle. There is no expert evidence for proving the defects of the work and deficiency of work done by the opposite party. Therefore that allegations are not sustainable. Further there is no evidence to prove the payments made by the complainant for availing the service of a rent a car and he had sustained financial expenses. 12. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the opposite party to prove his contentions: The opposite party’s counsel conducted a lengthy cross-examination of PW1, but nothing brought out from him to substantiate the contentions of opposite party. As per Ext.A1, it can be seen that the complainant had entrusted his vehicle to the opposite party on 12.5.2008 but it was returned only on 5.7.2008. There is a long delay in returning the vehicle after repairing. The inordinate delay in completing the works by the opposite party cannot be justified. In the absence of cogent evidence, the contention of opposite party is not sustainable. As regards, the delay caused to the repairing work of the complainant’s vehicle, the opposite party is liable to compensate the financial loss and other inconveniences sustained to the complainant. In the circumstances, we find a clear deficiency in service from the part of opposite party and the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. 13. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the complainant is allowed to realise an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as compensation and a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) from the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which an interest at the rate of 6% per annum will be paid to the complainant till the payment of whole amount from today. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 2nd day of December, 2009. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Varghese Philipose Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Cash bill dated 5.7.2008 for Rs.17,450/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent Copy to: (1) Varghese Philipose, Narakathinal kuzhiyil, Vettpram, Pathanamthitta. (2) Rajesh, Satheesh Bhavanam, Azhoor, Pathanamthitta. (3) The stock file.
......................Jacob Stephen
......................LathikaBhai
......................N.PremKumar | | 
