IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of August, 2015
Filed on 13.10.2014
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.258/2014
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Omanakkuttan Manager, S. S. Hyundai
S/o Sivaram Oppo. of C.S.I. Church
Sivachandra Bungalow Near Mitchel Junction
Umbarnadu Muri Mavelikara
Thekkekkara Village (By Adv. T.A Rajeev)
(By Adv. Ruby Raj)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is the owner of KL-04 T/9999 Hyundai Car which met with an accident, on 29.4.2014. Thereafter the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party for painting and repairing works. The opposite party agreed by order sheet that he would complete all the works for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.15,000/- on 6.5.2014 and Rs.30,000/- on 4.6.2014 towards advance. Opposite party failed to complete the repairing works within the time as agreed and he delivered the vehicle only on 13.8.2014 and thus committed delay of 65 days. Opposite party has levied an excess amount of Rs.22,000/- also from the complainant. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and that caused much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
Opposite party agreed to repair the damaged body of the vehicle including the repairment of the back bumper for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. As agreed opposite party repaired the body of the vehicle and informed the complainant about it. When the complainant came to the workshop and took the vehicle for a test drive, he informed the opposite party that the vehicle had low pulling. Then the opposite party informed him that the clutch should be changed for getting a higher pulling and it would cost an additional amount of Rs.22,000/- and that it would take more than two month’s time since it was to be ordered from Chennai Plant and be got delivered from there. The complainant agreed to pay the sum of Rs.22,000/- and also agreed to wait for two months. Apart from this, the complainant wanted to change it’s A/C Filter for which he agreed to pay Rs.3,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/- more for changing the front bumper also. The opposite party also undertook the additional work and changed the clutch, A/C Filter and front bumper. There occurred inordinate delay in getting the new clutch from the plant and the said delay occurred not due to the willful latches or negligence on the part of the opposite party. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. From the side of the opposite party no oral evidence is adduced. The documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 series.
4. The points came up for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant entrusted the damaged vehicle to the opposite party for repairing it for an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-. It is also admitted that complainant paid Rs.45,000/- in advance to the opposite party. Ext.A1 is the work order dated 7.6.2014 produced by the complainant. It shows that the vehicle will be delivered after repair to the complainant on 7.6.2014. According to the complainant though he approached the opposite party several times for taking the delivery of his vehicle, the opposite party denied to deliver the vehicle. The contention of the opposite party is that he repaired the body of the said vehicle and informed the complainant about it and complainant came to the workshop and after test drive, he informed the opposite party that the vehicle had low pulling. Hence the opposite party took 2 months more to repair the same. In order to substantiate this contention, no evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Not even a scrap of paper was produced by the opposite party to prove that they have completed all the repair works as per Ext.A1 and informed it to the complainant about the completion of the work. Opposite party further stated in the version that complainant came to the workshop and take the vehicle for test drive and thereafter informed the opposite party that vehicle had low pulling and the opposite party changed the clutch as per the request of the complainant. But while cross examining the complainant, he categorically stated that, he never demanded to change the clutch. But according to the opposite party, they had changed the clutch as per the request of the complainant and they got the clutch from Chennai as per their order and opposite party could finish all the works after getting the new clutch from the Chennai plant and the inordinate delay occurred in getting the new clutch from the plant. But opposite party has not produced any letter correspondence that they made with the Chennai plant. In the absence of any such evidence it is difficult to believe that the delay in delivering the vehicle occurred for the reasons beyond control. The delay occurred in delivering the vehicle is only due to the negligence of the opposite party. Ext.B1 series shows that when the vehicle delivered to the complainant he signed it and received from the workshop being satisfied with the work. Since the complainant received the vehicle without making any protest he cannot demand to refund the excess amount that he paid than the amount stated in Ext.A1. But we are of opinion that the opposite party had committed delay in delivering the vehicle than what is stated in Ext.A1. The inordinate delay in delivering the vehicle by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, the complaint is allowed partly. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation to the complainant. No further relief is granted as costs to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Omanakkuttan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Repair Order
Ext.A2 series - Receipts (3 Nos.)
Ext.A3 series - Tax Invoices (7 Nos.)
Ext.A4 - True copy of the Advocate Notice dated 1.7.2014
Ext.A5 - Acknowledgement card
Ext.A6 - Bill by Siva Motors dated 24.10.2014
Evidence of the opposite party :-
Ext.B1 Series - Tax Invoices and Repair order (8 Nos.)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties /S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
