Karnataka

Bagalkot

CC/58/2020

Manjunath S/o Shanthgouda Chinnangoudar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shashank S/o Mohan Kagiavara - Opp.Party(s)

C B Sobarad

05 Apr 2022

ORDER

                

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BAGALKOT.

C.C.No.58/2020 

Date of filing: 28/08/2020 

Date of disposal: 05/04/2022

                                                    

P R E S E N T :-

 

(1)	Shri.Vijaykumar M. Pawale,     B.A. LL.B. (Spl.)	President.
(2)	Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar,                             B.A. LL.B.	Lady Member.
(3)	Shri.R.S.Dandannavar,                           B.A.	Member.

 

COMPLAINANT :

Manjunath S/o Shanthgouda Chinnangoudar, Age: 24 Years, Occ: Private Service, R/o: Jambaldinni Village, Tq: Ilkal, Dist.Bagalkot.                                                       (Rep. by Shri.C.B.Sobarad, Adv.)

                                           

- V/S -

OPPOSITE PARTY:

1.

Shashank S/o Mohan Kagiavara, Age: 35 Years, Occ: Business, The Proprietor, Nisarga Motors, Near APMC, Ilkal, Dist.Bagalkot.                  (Rep. by Shri.M.B.Deshpande, Adv.)

 

JUDGEMENT

 

DELIVERED BY SHRI.VIJAYKUMAR M. PAWALE, PRESIDENT

 

 

1.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/sec. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party (in short the “OP”) for seeking reliefs as prayed in the prayer column of the complaint.

 

2.        In the complaint it is stated that the complainant had purchased a two wheeler Yamaha Fascion bearing No.
KA-29/EF-0719 in the year 2018 and the vehicle was get insured with Oriental Insurance Co.,. The said vehicle was met with an accident in the month of April 2019 while complainant was moving in the said vehicle by driving it alongwith his father. In this regard case came to be registered under Ilkal Crime No.39/2019. Complainant had sustained grievous injuries and he has taken treatment in Dr.Katti Hospital, Bagalkot and also in KLE Hospital Belgaum. In the said accident the vehicle of the complainant was heavily damaged and he got it repaired in the OP’s shop who is authorized dealer of Yamaha Vehicle. The complainant has handed over the vehicle to the OP in the month of June 2019. The Manager of the OP after due inspection of damage of the vehicle estimated the damage cost and given quotation to Oriental Insurance Company in order to claim damages. The OP furnished estimated report after vehicle damage and also insurance company conducted the vehicle survey in the OP’s shop. In order to claim damages amount from insurance company, the complainant requested the OP to furnish final bill and accordingly OP after completion of work issued the final bill of Rs.39,442/- on 23.01.2020 and the complainant has paid the full amount to the OP. Thereafter, the complainant asked the OP to handover the repaired vehicle to him and at that time the OP demanded certain excess amount without any basis and hence the complainant refused to give excess amount over the bill. OP refused to deliver the vehicle.          

 

3.        Further in the complaint it is stated that the complainant after the submitting the claim application before the insurance company, the insurance company officer after due verification of bills and spare parts bills, granted the damages compensation amount to the extent of Rs.27,000/- on 05.03.2020. But Insurance Co., while granting the compensation amount spare parts i.e. battery is not allowed stating that the battery is not coming under warranty period as the vehicle is one year old and same can be obtained from the vehicle manufacturer company. It is discloses that the OP has falsely claimed battery cost of Rs.1,482/- from the complainant.

 

4.     Further in the complaint it is stated that the complainant having sustained grievous injuries due to fracture in leg he was unable to walk properly. On one or the other pretext the OP was denying to deliver the repaired motor cycle to the complainant. In the month of June 2020 after removal of Covid restrictions rules, the complainant once again he gone to shop of OP and demanded for delivery of his motorcycle. But once again OP demanded excess amount over the final bill and refused to deliver vehicle. Therefore, ultimately complainant got issued legal dated:23.07.2020 to OP demanding delivery of his vehicle, but to the said legal notice reply has been given by creating the false and vexatious story by OP just to event his responsibility to deliver the vehicle to the complainant.

 

5.     Further in the complaint it is stated that the complainant has paid the final bill amount to the OP on 23.01.2020 basing on which he has already received the damages claim amount from insurance company in the month of March 2020. Even after several request by the complainant to OP for handing over his repaired vehicle but OP has refused to deliver the vehicle to the complainant. Even after payment of final bill amount. Due to this the complainant has suffered loss and so there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence the Complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the OP for seeking reliefs as prayed in the complaint.

 

6.        After registering the complaint, the OP in response to the notice issued to him appeared through his counsel and filed his written version.

 

 OP in his version denying the complainant’s case in para No.2 of the version stated as under:

 “ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ 2 £Éà ¥ÁågÁzÀ°è PÁt¹zÀAvÉ CfðzÁgÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀiÁ®QÃAiÀÄ AiÀĪÀĺÁ ¥sÁå¹£ÉÆà ªÁºÀ£À £ÀA§gÀ PÉ.J.29 E¥sï0719 EzÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ vÁ£ÀÄ ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉAiÀÄ qÁ|| PÀnÖ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è ºÁUÀÆ ¨É¼ÀUÁ«AiÀÄ°è G¥ÀZÁgÀ ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ ¤d EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ªÁºÀ£À C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ F JzÀgÀÄzÁgÀ£À CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è j¥ÉÃjUÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ ¤d CzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ªÁºÀ£À «ªÉÄUÉ M¼À¥ÀlÖ PÁgÀt «ªÀiÁ PÀA¥À¤UÉ PÀ½»¸À®Ä PÉÆmÉñÀ£ï PÉýzÀÄÝ D jÃw JzÀgÀÄzÁgÀ£ÀÄ PÉÆmÉñÀ£ï ¸ÀºÀ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ ¤d CzÉ.  ¸ÀzÀgÀ ªÁºÀ£À j¥ÉÃj DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀgÀ j¥ÉÃj ºÀt PÉý vÀ£Àß ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß CfðzÁgÀ¤UÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä w½¹zÀÄÝ CfðzÁgÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀgÀ «ªÉÄ ºÀt §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ j¥ÉÃj ºÀt PÉÆlÄÖ  MAiÀÄÄåªÀzÁV ºÉýzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ ¥ÁªÀw PÉÆqÀ®Ä PÉýzÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÁªÀw ºÀt PÉÆlÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÉÆqÀĪÀzÁV ºÉýzÀÄÝ «ªÀiÁ PÀA¥À¤UÉ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀë ªÁålì¥ï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¥ÁªÀw PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À®Ä «£ÀAw¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀgÀ CfðzÁgÀ£À «£ÀAwAiÀÄAvÉ CªÀ£À ªÁlì¥ÀUÉ gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ £ÀPÀ®Ä ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ DzÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ® gÀ¹Ã¢ JzÀgÀÄzÁgÀ£À §½AiÀįÉèà EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CfðzÁgÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀÆ j¥ÉÃj ºÀt PÉÆnÖ®è ºÁUÀÆ vÀ£Àß ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀvÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV®è.”

 

Further OP in his version para No.4 contended as under:

“MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É CfðzÁgÀ£ÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð j¥ÉÃj ºÀt PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÉ CzÀPÉÌ, ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ¥ÁªÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀgÀ CfðAiÉÆA¢UÉ ºÁdgÀ¥Àr¸À§ºÀÄ¢vÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀgÀ j¥ÉÃj ºÀt PÉÆqÀzÉà EzÀÝ PÁgÀt ºÀt PÉÆlÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀvÀ PÉÆqÀĪÀzÁV ºÉýzÀÄÝ EvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ CªÀ£ÀÄ j¥ÉÃj ºÀt PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV j¥ÉÃj ºÀt PÉÆÃlÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ£À ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀvÀPÉÆqÀ®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¸À®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁgÀt E®è. ºÁUÀÆ CfðzÁgÀ¤UÉ vÀ£Àß ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ «ªÀiÁ ºÀt dªÀiÁ DVzÀÝgÀÆ ¸À»vÀ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ j¥ÉÃj ºÀtPÉÆlÄÖ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¸À® w½¹zÀgÀÆ CfðzÁgÀ£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀt PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ ªÁºÀ£À vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.”

So like this OP in his version contended that at the request of complainant he had sent tax invoice through his whatsup without receiving any amount mentioned in the tax invoice so as to facilitate the complainant to get Insurance amount from the Insurance company and hence the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

7.     The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit evidence. At the time of filing the complaint, he has also produced list of documents with documents which are as follows:

 

1. Xerox true copy of T.P. Registration of vehicle.

2. Xerox true copy of Invoice bill dated:23.01.2020.

3. Office copy of legal notice dated:23.07.2020.

4. Original reply notice dated:17.08.2020.

5. Xerox true copy of Insurance Policy of vehicle.

6. Xerox true copy of payment voucher.

 

8.     On the other hand OP has filed his affidavit evidence but he has not filed any documents. 

 

9.      The points that arise for consideration are as under:

1.	Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as sought for?
2.	What order?

10.  

 

1. Point No.1. In the Affirmative.
2. Point No.2 As per final order for the following

R E A S O N S

 

11.  

 

12.  

 

13. the OP in his version contended that he is having original tax invoice with him only. But admittedly the said original tax invoice has not been produced in this case. Further OP has not produced any documents to show that whenever customers pay the bills for repair charges of the vehicle, he used to issue separate receipts to customers.

 

14. No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.  

 

15.   Point No.2 : In view of answer on point No.1, we proceed to pass the following

 

O R D E R

 

1.     The complainant’s complaint is partly allowed.

 

2.   OP is hereby directed to deliver the motorcycle bearing No.KA-29 EF-0719 in running condition to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

 3.    Further Op shall pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation charges.

 

5.     Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost forthwith.  

 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced on this the 05^th  day ofApril 2022).

 

 

           

(Shri.Vijaykumar M. Pawale)

President

 

(Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

Lady Member

 

(Shri.Rangangouda S. Dandannavar)

Member