Kerala

Kollam

CC/103/2021

Jayakumar.R,aged 58 years, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ramesh,aged 42 years, - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.M.P.SUGATHAN CHITTUMALA

22 Jul 2022

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Civil Station ,
Kollam-691013.
Kerala.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/103/2021
( Date of Filing : 19 Mar 2021 )
 
1. Jayakumar.R,aged 58 years,
S/o.Sri.Ramakrishnapillai,Varuvilaveedu,Kuzhiyam South,Chandanathope.P.O,Perinad Village,Kollam District-691014.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Ramesh,aged 42 years,
Licensee cum owner,Das Motor Works,Near D.C.C.Office,Contonment.P.O,Kollam East Village,Kollam District-691001.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. SANDHYA RANI.S PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 22 Jul 2022
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE   22nd  DAY OF JULY 2022

Present: -        Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani Bsc, LLB ,Member(President In Charge)

           Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

    CC.No.103/2021

Jayakumar R., 58 years,

S/o Sri.Ramakrishnapillai,

Varuvila veedu, Kuzhiyam South,

Chandanathope P.O.,

Perinad Village, Kollam 691 014.:           Complainant

(By Adv.M.P.Sugathan Chittumala)

V/s

Ramesh, aged 42 years,

Licensee cum Owner, Das Motor Works,

Near D.C.C Office, Contonment P.O.,: Opposite Party

Kollam East Village, Kollam District 691 001.

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

            This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

            The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

            The complainant had entrusted his Maruti 800 car bearing No.KL-02 X4853 on 09.12.2020 for the purpose of painting and essential patch works thereby making the vehicle in a perfect working condition.  The complainant had paid Rs.10,000/- along with these to replace the silencer of the vehicle.  The opposite party has demanded separate amount for removing the silencer and assured the complainant the vehicle would be repaired in a good condition within 10 days and deliver it in a perfect working condition.  But the opposite party failed to fulfill the promise within the specific time.  Thereafter the opposite party told the complainant on 26.12.2020 the work was completed and the opposite party had issued the bill dated 25.12.2020 for Rs.21,870/-.  The amount shown the bill was really shocked to the complainant.  The complainant had already paid Rs.10,000/- as advance and excess Rs.10,000/- also had to be remitted to the opposite party for completing the maintenance works of the car.  The complainant was very much doubtful about the work done by the opposite party.  The opposite party had done the maintenance works in an incomplete manner.  The complainant had examined his vehicle after the maintenance works in the opposite party and it is evident that in the body part of the car only one layer of paint had been applied.  The undercoating painting had done a proper manner as possible only a white paint has been applied in the body.   

            The opposite party had demanded the complainant for replacing the silencer separate amount has to be paid.  But the defect of the silencer is still in existence.  The opposite party had levied exorbitant amount for the spare parts than the price of spare parts made by the company.  The bill issued by the opposite party would indicate the patch works and mechanical works stated in the head of the bill is Rs.5,000/- and the full painting works amounts to Rs.11,000/-  Thus total Rs.21,870/- for the maintenance works of the vehicle.  The opposite party did not done the work as assured by him.  At the time of entrusting the vehicle for the mechanical works and painting by rubbing erasing or grinding and pasting pooty for a day and washing and warming in the sunlight the under coating paint should be applied the opposite party also assured the complainant the existing paint of the car will be removed.    The opposite party has charged and received Rs.11,000/- on this head in the bill and the Air conditioner was not clean or done any maintenance.  Complainant while delivering the car on 28.12.2020 there is sound and smoke emission in the vehicle in a running condition.  At the time the complainant without any hesitation produced his car before the workshop of the opposite party to detect the said defects.  The opposite party done only the maintenance works amounts for Rs.10,000/- and the opposite party is only eligible to receive the aforesaid amount for spare parts and service charge.  The work done by the opposite party is not at all satisfactory at the time of delivering the vehicle. The complainant has to entrust his car to the popular vehicle service centre and they made the vehicle in a perfect and good condition enabling for the purpose of retest.  The opposite party had not perfectly done the maintenance works even mechanical painting and patch works and not at all replaced any spares which is very inevitable for the car.  The complainant had sustained mental agony and financial loss as a consumer of the opposite party.  The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint.

            Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records.

            Though notice was issued to opposite party from Forum/Commission the opposite party failed to appear before the Forum/Commission and opposite party was called absent, hence set exparte.  The complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.P1 series and P2 series.

            Ext.P1 series is bill issued by the opposite party dated 25.12.2020 and 26.12.2020 for Rs.21,000/-.  Ext.P2 series is the job card/tax invoice issued on 04.02.2021 from Popular Vehicles Service Auto Ltd.

            The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.P1 series and P2 series would establish prima facie the complainant had entrusted his car bearing Reg.No.KL-02 X4853 on 09.12.2020 to make the vehicle in the perfect working condition for which he had paid Rs.10,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the cost of replacing the silencer as demanded by the opposite party.

            However the opposite party failed to comply with the assurance at the time of entrusting the vehicle and evaded from completing the maintenance works in proper time and caused delay in patch works of the body, painting and other mechanical works.  Thereafter in spite of repeated demands and requests the opposite party has delivered the vehicle to the complainant with an enormous bill amounting Rs.21,870/- which made the complainant utter shocked.  “ It is very pertinent to note that a vehicle entrusted for the maintenance works in a workshop or showroom the proprietor who is running the workshop is under an obligation to make the vehicle in perfect and good condition and to deliver the same without any delay”.  The opposite party had failed to perform the maintenance works entrusted to him.  It is very clear that the opposite party had nor perfectly and in a minimum standard completed the maintenance works of the car.  This is a clear instance of deficiency in service due to this the complainant had to entrust his vehicle to Popular Vehicles Service Centre solely to the inefficient maintenance works done by the opposite party.  Thereafter the Popular Service Centre had maintained the vehicle in a perfect condition enabling for retest of the vehicle.  The opposite party is obliged to perform the maintenance works as assured at the time of entrusting the vehicle.  It is made clear by the complainant after delivering the car from the opposite party workshop he had made a clear examination regarding the maintenance works done by the opposite party and was not satisfied with the same.  It is evident from the examination of Maruti car bearing Reg.No.KL-02 X 4853 the works done by the opposite party is inferior in quality.  The paint of the car is done by an existing procedure usually the paint existing in the body of the car will be erased and removed and thereafter applying putti and a single layer of paint will be applied thereafter the 2nd layer also to be applied then only the painting will complete.  The opposite party has done the painting without removing the old painting applied and a single layer of the paint is applied in the complainant’s car.  More over the opposite party has not done the painting in the underside of the car and only applying normal white paint in the undercoat portion.  It is pertinent to note that in most of the vehicle’s there is specific automobile paint preferred for the undercoat portion.  The opposite party had not replaced the silencer by substituting a brand new silencer.  The silencer is in the same condition at the time of entrusting the car to the opposite party.  According to the complainant the opposite party had charged excess amount for the spares valuing less amount.  The weather slip of the car is normally costs for the original is Rs.300/- and the opposite party had charge an amount of Rs.600/-.  It is very evident that the opposite party had not at all complied the terms at the time of entrusting the vehicle for the maintenance works.  It is also made clear by the complainant that the opposite party had charged an excess amount in Ext.P1 series bills by not providing proper service to the complainant.  It is clear that without completing the maintenance works assured by the opposite party and charging an exorbitant amount as bills in different heads amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Thereafter it is evident that when the fan connected along with the air conditioner is removed.  Certain pieces of broken glasses are visible in the cabin of the air conditioner.  These facts has been pointed out by the complainant to the opposite party to make clear and check the air conditioner of the car but the opposite party failed to do the same.  As a result of this the knob of the air conditioner fan heat adjusting knob and the inner portion of the air conditioner cabin had sustained damage.  It is a commonly existing accepted rule when a vehicle is entrusted for patch work, painting work and other maintenance works in a workshop having reputation, the very first process is to dismantle the spare parts and service the vehicle thereafter the existing paint will be removed erasing or grinding through or other means and they will wash again and fix putty all over the body of vehicle and then paste leppan covering the putty  and keep the vehicle in sunlight and thereafter apply a one layer paint, if it is satisfactory and if it is having coverage in the entire body vehicle they will complete work.  But if it is in an incomplete manner they will prefer a second layer, it is pertinent to note this is   done in a car which opts to change a different colour for instance when a white colour is converted into red colour.    It is very inevitable to apply two layer of paint in the car.  However the complainant had not mentioned the change of colour of car in the complaint.  However the opposite party had not performed work in a minimum standard.   It is very pertinent to note that the complainant entrusted the maintenance works of his car delivering that opposite party’s concern is running business for the last several years and there was not even a single instance which caused any difficult to the customers.  Thereafter the complainant had entrusted the works of his car to the Popular Vehicle Service Ltd. for making the vehicle in a perfect condition for enabling the vehicle for the purpose of retest.  The Popular vehicle service centre had perform the works of the car in utmost perfect and good condition and delivered the same to the complainant and the opposite party had not performed the obligation at the time of entrusting the car for maintenance work which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

            On evaluating the entire evidence we are of the view that the opposite party had levied excess charges for the maintenance works such as patch works painting and spares which were not replaced and this fact was convinced by the complainant while checking the vehicle in a trial driving and not produced the car in proper time.

In the result the complaint is only to be allowed in the following terms.   

  1. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount shown in the Ext.P1 series after deducting the amount for the works done and spares.
  2. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
  3. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
  4. The opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.21,870/- with interest @ 9% per annum along with costs Rs.3,000/-.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the  22nd day of  July 2022. 

STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

                                   (President I/c)

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                       Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1 series   : Bill issued by the opposite party dated 25.12.2020 and 26.12.2020 for

                           Rs.21,000/-.

Ext.P2 series   : The job card/tax invoice issued on 04.02.2021 from Popular Vehicles Service

                          Auto Ltd.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil     

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SANDHYA RANI.S]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD]
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.