DATE OF FILING : 6.1.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.8/2010

Between

Complainant : Sijo Mathew,

Parathazhathu House,

Parappuzha P.O.,

Illichuvadu, Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: P.A. Suhas & Lissi M.M.)

And

Opposite Party : Shybu,

Manager – Suzuki Motors,

Maruthi Service Centre,

Near Neerali Fish Market,

Moovattupuzha Road,

Vengalloor, Thodupuzha.

Idukki District.

(By Adv: V.C. Sebastian)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHANAN

The complainant is working as Marketing Executive in Malabar Gold at Thodupuzha. His vehicle No.KL5K 6419, maruthi omni, was entrusted to the opposite party for repairing the patch work of the same on 6.11.2009. After repair the vehicle delivered to the complainant on 11.11.2009 by the opposite party and an amount of Rs.4,000/- was paid by the complainant as service charge. The complainant and his friend Rajesh Paul, took delivery of the vehicle and after running 1 Km from the service station, the vehicle caused petrol leak and suddenly stopped on the way. This matter was informed to the opposite party through telephone by the complainant. The opposite party reached the place and started the vehicle with the complainant and his friend, when the vehicle has driven about 200 meters, fire has been raised from the engine part of the vehicle and the bearing set, radiator, battery, carborator, pipe, painting, clutch cable, etc. were destroyed due to that. It is because of the defect in the repair of the vehicle, that caused fire in the running vehicle. The complainant then repaired it at authorised service centre of Maruthi company by spending Rs.35,000/-. So this petition is filed for getting compensation under various heads.

2. The opposite party filed written version stating that the vehicle was entrusted to the opposite party by the complainant for the repair of the sliding door levelling and painting, dicky door, levelling and painting, dicky quarter panel levelling and painting. After when the works were done, the complainant told that there is some missing in the vehicle. So the opposite party changed the timing belt, plug cleaning and injector checking were also done and the missing was cleared. All the defects were cured on 11.11.2009 at about 11 a.m and the vehicle was given to the complainant. No objection or dispute raised by the complainant against the repair of the vehicle. A bill of Rs.4,000/- was given to the opposite party by the complainant, but the complainant paid only Rs.2,000/- to the opposite party and told that the balance Rs.2,000/- will be paid in the next Saturday. Believing the words of the complainant who is working in the Malabar Gold, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant without obtaining the entire amount. The vehicle was driven by the complainant at about 11 a.m on 11.11.2009. Test driving was also done by the opposite party at the time of delivering the vehicle. The complainant telephoned to the opposite party in the evening at 7.45 p.m, stating that the vehicle became break down at Madakkathanam. But the opposite party told that the workshop was closed and the vehicle will be repaired in the very next day. But again the complainant compelled the opposite party and so the opposite party reached there in a bike of one Mr.Kabeer. When inspected, it was noticed that the petrol was leaking and so the hose was to be changed. So the opposite party told the complainant to bring the vehicle at the workshop by pulling it with another vehicle. But the complainant again compelled that he was not having that much of money to bring the vehicle with the help of another vehicle. So they asked the opposite party to drive the vehicle to the workshop in any other means. The opposite party denied the same and left the place on that day. The opposite party never used the vehicle from the spot to the workshop after the incident. After that about 9 p.m, the complainant pulled the vehicle with a goods autorikshaw to the workshop of the opposite party. On examination, it is noticed that the wiring kit, air filter, clutch cable, axilator cable, air filter case and wiring coupling were burned due to fire. The complainant told that the fire was occurred when the complainant tried to bring the vehicle to the workshop after when the opposite party left the place. As per the request of the complainant, the opposite party repaired the vehicle, but the cost of Rs.900/- for repair charge was not paid on that day and told that the amount will be paid on the very next Saturday. There is no defect caused in the repairing of the vehicle by the opposite party. But the vehicle was an old one and the maintenance was not done periodically. The vehicle was used without any care. So the accident was caused to the vehicle. The opposite party is not at all liable for the loss caused to the vehicle. There is no such amount of Rs.35,000/- paid for the repair of the vehicle and hence the petition may be dismissed.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs1 & 2 and Exts.P1 to P3 are marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DWs1 & 2 on the side of the opposite parties.

5. The POINT :- The petition is filed for getting compensation from the opposite party for the damages caused to the vehicle due to defect in the repair by the opposite party. The complainant is examined as PW1. The complainant entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party on 6.11.2009 for curing the missing and patch work. The opposite party completed the work on 11.11.2009 and the bill of Rs.4,000/- was given to the complainant for the repair. It is marked as Ext.P1. PW1 was driving the vehicle from the workshop and when 1 Km was covered, the vehicle was stopped because of petrol leak. The matter was informed to the opposite party, the opposite party came over there and started to drive the vehicle, when the vehicle moved 200 meters, fire has been spread from the front engine portion of the vehicle. The bearing set, radiator, battery, carborator, pipe, painting, clutch cable, etc. were burned due to that. The vehicle was then repaired at Indus Motors on 18.2.2010 and a bill of Rs.6,564/- was received from there for the repair and the same is marked as Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is copy of the R.C. Book of the vehicle. The vehicle was a second hand one, it covered 30,000 Kms when PW1 purchased the same. On cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, PW1 deposed that the vehicle was not given for the repair of sliding door levelling and painting, dicky door levelling and painting, dicky quarter panel levelling and painting. The vehicle has covered about 58,000 Kms at the time of repair at the opposite party's workshop. The vehicle was kept in the opposite party's workshop for repair and after 4 days it was pulled with another vehicle to Indus Motors which is at 2 Kms away from the workshop of the opposite party. The vehicle was at the complainant's residence on 23.3.2010. The vehicle was at Indus Motors when the case was filed. Ext.P2 bill has been issued to one Annies P.P., who is the registered owner of the vehicle. PW2 is the friend of the complainant who was also with the complainant when the vehicle was given for repair. The vehicle was delivered about at 6 p.m in the evening. The vehicle was stopped due to petrol leak while the complainant was driving. The wiring kit were burned due to fire. The opposite party was examined as DW1. DW1 deposed that the vehicle was duly entrusted to the opposite party for the repair of sliding door levelling and painting, dicky door levelling and painting, dicky quarter panel levelling and painting. It was brought to the workshop on 8.11.2009 and it is also told by the complainant that there was missing to the vehicle. So the timing belt changed, plug cleaning and injector checking were also done on 11.11.2009 at about 11 a.m, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. There was no dispute about the repair of the vehicle at that time. The complainant paid the bill in instalments of Rs.500/-, Rs.1,000/-, and Rs.500/-, so Rs.2,000/- was paid and the balance payment was postponed to the next Saturday, by the complainant. In the evening, the complainant telephoned that the vehicle became break down on the way, after the repeated request of the complainant, the opposite party reached there. When inspection, it was found that petrol was leaking and told to the complainant that the vehicle could be repaired only after changing the hose. DW1 instructed to bring the vehicle by pulling with another vehicle to his workshop and left the place on that day. In the night, at 9 o'clock, the complainant brought the vehicle by pulling with a goods autorikshaw. On inspection it was found that wiring kit, air filter, clutch cable, axilator cable, air filter case and wiring coupling were burned due to fire. It was repaired again and Rs.900/- was charged, but the money was not delivered by the complainant and told that it will be given on the next Saturday. The fire was caused due to low maintenance and careless use of the complainant and non of the defect of the act of the opposite party. DW2 is a painting worker in the workshop of the opposite party. The disputed vehicle was also painted by DW2. The complainant telephoned to the workshop, at 11.11.2009 between 7.30 and 8 o'clock in the evening, stating that the vehicle became break down on the way. DW2 was also accompanied with DW1 there. DW2 deposed that he is not aware of the date of the accident. It was in the evening at about 8 o'clock. DW1 told that there is petrol leak to the vehicle and so it should be pulled with another vehicle.

It is clear that the vehicle was entrusted to the workshop of the opposite party for repair, it was duly repaired by the opposite party and delivered on 11.11.2009. And it is also clear that fire has spread on the engine side of the vehicle and some damages has been caused to the vehicle. As per the complainant the vehicle stopped while he was driving because of petrol leak, so he telephoned the opposite party and the opposite party came there. While the opposite party was driving the vehicle to the workshop, after 200 meters, fire spread in the front side of the vehicle and caused damages to the bearing set, radiator, battery, carborator, pipe, painting, clutch cable, etc. of the vehicle. As per the opposite party, the vehicle was duly delivered after repairing, on 11.11.2009 in the morning at 11 o'clock and the complainant telephoned in the evening at 7.45 p.m, about the break down of the vehicle. When the opposite party reached there, and after inspection, revealed that it was due to petrol leak the vehicle stopped on the way and hose was to be changed. He instructed the complainant to bring the vehicle to the workshop by pulling with another vehicle. It is admitted by the complainant in his cross examination in the page No.7 that, the opposite party told that the vehicle could be inspected if it brings to the workshop by pulling with another vehicle. In the complaint and also in the affidavit, the complainant admitted that the vehicle was suddenly stopped on the way, due to petrol leak. As per the complainant, the opposite party started the vehicle and when it moved 200 ms, fire spread in the engine side of the vehicle. But it is not deposed in anywhere that how the vehicle started without bringing petrol. The vehicle was stopped because of petrol leak and the complainant never produced any evidence to show that anybody brought petrol and filled in the vehicle after the break down. So it is not clear how the vehicle started even after the break down of the vehicle due to petrol leak. Thus if the vehicle caught fire while it was running and if the opposite party was using the vehicle, it was due to the request and compulsion of the complainant that the opposite party tried to start the vehicle in the night when the vehicle was became break down on the way. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant telephoned the opposite party and opposite party reached there as per the request of the complainant.

There is no dispute regarding “repair of the vehicle” before the accident. The complainant never deposed the reason for cause of fire to the vehicle. No expert evidence produced by complainant to show the cause of the fire of the vehicle. The vehicle was kept at the workshop while the case was filed and as per the complainant, the vehicle was kept at his residence for a long time without repair. So an expert opinion is not produced by the complainant or no inspection was done by any expert to know what are the damages caused to the vehicle after the incident. As per the complainant, the vehicle repaired and an amount of Rs.35,000/- paid by the complainant for the same. But Ext.P2 bill shows, the repair of the vehicle costs only Rs.6,564/-. As per the complainant, the vehicle was repaired at Indus Motors, the authorised dealers of Maruthi Omni after the incident. According to the complainant and the opposite party, the vehicle was repaired at the opposite party's workshop and delivered after repair, on 11.11.2009. But Ext.P2 job card of Indus Motors No.JC09000002, shows that the date is 18.1.2010 and the invoice is dated 18.2.2010. So the vehicle was entrusted to the Indus Motors company for repair only on 18.1.2010. As per Ext.P2, it was repaired and delivered on 18.2.2010. As per the deposition of the complainant, in page No.8, the vehicle covered about 58,000 Kms at the time of fire accident and after the accident the vehicle was at Cochin Motors. He also stated that the vehicle was at opposite party's workshop and after 4 days, it was shifted to Indus Motors, which is 2 Kms away by pulling with another vehicle which kept there for 3 months. As per Ext.P2 bill, the mileage is written as 59,979 Kms. The vehicle covered a total of 58,000 Kms while at the time of repair on the opposite party's workshop and then it is entrusted to Indus Motors on 18.1.2010, the mileage of the vehicle is 59,979 Kms at that time, so the vehicle has covered about 1979 Kms after repair by the opposite party. There is no explanation given by PW1 in anywhere that who used the vehicle for such a long kilometers. The complainant deposed that the vehicle was kept in the workshop while the case filed but it was not mentioned in the complaint or anywhere in the affidavit. As per the job card of Indus Motors, the vehicle was entrusted there only on 18.1.2010. But as per the deposition of the complainant the vehicle was pulled to Indus Motors after 4 days from the repair of the opposite party's workshop and Indus Motors is 2 Km away from the opposite party's workshop. So the version of PW1 cannot be believable and there is no expert evidence produced by the complainant to show that the damages caused to the vehicle is because of the defect of the repair of the opposite party. The complainant never tried to examine the manager of Indus Motors to prove that the repair of the vehicle was because of the damages caused due to the defect in service of the opposite party. There is no evidence to show that the repair costs Rs.35,000/-. Ext.P2 bill for Rs.6,564/- produced is not tally with the damages described by the complainant. So we think that the vehicle is an old one and already covered 1,979 Kms after repair by the opposite party. The complainant is hiding something behind the curtain. So we think that the complainant never proved that the damages caused to the vehicle are because of the defect in service of the opposite party.

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 29^th day of June, 2010.

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Sijo Mathew

PW2 - Rajesh Paul

On the side of the Opposite party :

DW1 - Shybu

DW2 - V.A. Kabeer.

Exhibits :

Ext.P1 - Cash receipt No.355 dated 11.11.2009, of the opposite party.

Ext.P2 - Job Card No.JC09000002 dated 18.1.2010 of the opposite party.

Ext.P3 - Copy of the R.C. Book of the vehicle No. KL05/K6419.

On the side of the Opposite party :

Nil.