KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.598/05
JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.2010
PRESENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
The Manager,
TVS Automobiles,
Vilangadan Complex, -- APPELLANT
Perandoor Road, Elamakkara,
Kochi – 682 024.
(By Adv.U.K.Ramakrishnan & Ors.)
Vs.
Siby Skariah, S/0 Skariah,
Ambazhappumkudiyil House,
Ramalloor Kara, -- RESPONDENT
Kothamangalam.
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.No.523/04 dated 30th March 2005. The appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant respectively.
2. In brief, the complainant who is a consumer of the opposite parties he entrusted his car to the opposite parties for repairing certain defects, general check up and service etc. After completed this work he had been given delivery of the vehicle on 16.7.04 after collected an amount of Rs.9745/- by the opposite party from the complainant towards the head of repair charges, general check up and servicing. It is alleged that after taken delivery of the vehicle within a period of one week both the front tyres were damaged and on taking the vehicle to ‘cartech’ a computerized wheel alignment center he was informed that the damage of the tyres were on account of the wrong wheel alignment . Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is not having corrected the wheel alignment then the complainant had filed the complaint for the reliefs as mentioned above. The opposite party contended in the written version that where in other things it had been specifically stated that on 13.7.04 the complainant while entrusting his vehicle for carrying out certain repairs and never so for checking the wheel alignment and hence the appellant had never checked the same. As the appellant had never asked to check the wheel alignment that the tyres got damage on account of the negligence of the appellant had hence been refuted. The complainant had got himself examine as well as examines the owner of the floor from where he had specifically carried out the wheel alignment. On the part of the appellant, the Asst. Manager had been examined. The forum thereupon allow the complaint petition and directed the appellant to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,110 with cost of Rs.750/- within a period of one month in the date of receipt of copy of the order.
3. Appellant prefers this appeal from the above order passed by the forum below. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing, the counsel for the appellant and respondents are present. The counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the wheel alignment not a work undertaken by the appellant/opposite party. It did not cover in the general check up. He submitted that it clearly seen in the documents issued by the appellant in the repair of the vehicle (Ext.A1 to A6). He submitted that the complainant did not taken expert commission to show that the defect of the tyres incidental due to the defect of the wheel alignment. He arranged that the complainant did not produce the defect tyres and the bill of the new tyres purchased by him for his car. He submitted that the order passed by the forum below is not accordance with the law and evidence as per the assumption and not without analyzing the evidence adduced by the complainant and opposite parties. He prays to set aside the order passed by the forum below and to allow the appeal.
4. The counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that it is the bounden duty of the appellant/opposite party to bring out the entire defect during the time of the general check up of the vehicle. But he did not do it. Suppose he find out that the problem of the wheel alignment is having in the vehicle either he himself can rectify or he can advising to rectify it through some other expert agencies. According to the counsel for the respondent/complainant general check up is a trouble suiting of the vehicle. It done by an expert mechanic of the appellants service center (TVS company). He submitted that his tyres become defective due to the deficiency in service committed by the appellant/opposite parties in the general check up and he collected the amount also.
5. This commission is seeing that the general check up means a general inspection of the vehicle and rectify it. There is no question of wheel alignment was arranged. But in a submission of the complainant he is acceptable a repudiated service center like the appellant. It is the duty to find out all the defects however is not having any computer system for checking the wheel alignment he can advise it to do by any other persons. But the complainant in his complaint did not raise any such allegation. He alleged that any coverage of general check up of the vehicle it must do the wheel alignment. The bill issued by the appellant to the complainant on his general inspection service and repairs etc. any amount not seen corrected by them in the head of the wheel alignment. Complainant has also not having any case that he takes steps to inspect the defect of the vehicle by an expert. He did not produce the defect tyres and the purchase bill etc. The complainant did to prove that the defect of the tyres of the car incidented due to the problem of the wheel alignment and he produce two new tyres for replacing the defect tyres. We are not seeing any piece of evidence both oral and documentary evidence (Ext.A1 to A8 and Ext.B1, PW1, PW2 and DW1) respectively.
6. In this circumstance, we are seeing that how the forum below awarded compensation on the deficiency in service committed by the appellant/opposite parties in this matter. There is no doubt that the order passed by the forum below not only on the basis of an assumption or a presumption. It is not legally sustainable. We decide to interfere in the impugned order passed by the forum below.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and set aside the impugned order passed by the forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own dhasti. The points of the appeal discussed in detail and answered accordingly.
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
s/L
