IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30thday of March, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
C C No. 77/2018 (filed on 25-04-2018)
Petitioner : Mathew K.C.
Parappoothra House,
Thiruvathukkal,
Kottayam -3.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Sibi,
Prabha Automotive Centre,
Thekkumgopuram, Kottayam – 1.
(Adv.GitheshJ.Babu and
Adv. Nithin Sunny Alex)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complainant who finds his livelihood by transportation using his Maruti Omni No.KL-44-2967. The said van was taken to the opposite party for some repair works and entrusted with the opposite partyon 10-04-2018. The opposite party gave a list of work to be done and their rates. But on enquiry with other workshops, the complainant understood that the price list given by the opposite party was exorbitant. Eventhough the complainant discussed this with the opposite party he was not ready to reduce the amount. The complainant in order to avoid a dispute, paid the entire amount of Rs.6,886/. He had to pay another Rs.650/- towards auto charge and purchase price of some spare parts. The complainant got information from some other workshop that the said amount was exorbitant. Evenafter payment of the amount,upon delivery when the complainant tried to start the vehicle it could not be started. Thus the complainant realized that the opposite party did not repair the vehicle correctly. So the amount paid to the opposite party was invain as no work was done on the vehicle and the complainant had to approach another workshop for repairing the same and would have to pay additional amount. Thus the complaint is filed against the opposite party for committing deficiency in service to the complainant even after keeping his vehicle for 11 days and betraying him.
Upon notice opposite party admitted and filed version. In the version, the opposite party contented that the statement of the complainant that he was the owner of KL-44-2967 and the same was used for his livelihood is false. The complainant is running a catering service of his own. The complainant approached the opposite party with the complaint of the vehicle that an unusual sound from the gear box. The opposite party informed the complainant that the real reason for the complaint could be known only after the gear box was opened and checked. The allegation that the opposite party realized exorbitant charges by giving a detailed price list is not correct becauseif the complainant could repair the vehicle on a lower cost he could not have given the vehicle to the opposite party. Only after the removal of the gear box, the opposite party realized that the engine of the vehicle fell upside down due to the breakage of the engine foundation bolts.There was no discussion about the rate of repair before the completion of work. In the presence of the complainant only when the gear box was removed it was seen that the engine bolts were broken. The opposite party tried to took the engine out. The engine was taken to another laith workshop along with the complainant. They took a broken bolt from the engine. The engine and gear box work are the main important work of the vehicle, which usually cost Rs.10,000/-. But the opposite party demanded the complainant to pay only Rs.6,886/-. Moreover the complainant instead of repairing the gear box brought an old gear box from some scrap dealer and demanded to fix the same. The opposite party tried several times for fitting the old gear box but it was not matching with the engine. The complainant again approachedwith another scrap gear box but it was also failed. Thereafter the 2nd gear box was fitted with the engine after cutting and grinding the shaft. The opposite party could not complete the work even after trying for several times due to mismatch of the engine and gear box. All its works were done by lifting the vehicle and for that more than 3 workers have participated. Moreover the break was removed and reset, gear liver assembly was fully replaced. The delay of 7 days was caused only because the complainant delayed in giving the parts. The opposite party did not charge any auto charge or other expenses. The allegation that after completion of work, the vehicle could not be started is not correct. The complainant himself had driven the vehicle on the same day. Evenafter the complainant abused the opposite party and his workers he had not initiated any legal proceedings against the complainant. So the allegation in the compliant is false and frivolous and the compliant is liable to be dismissed.
Opposite parties filed version and the complainant filed Ext.A1 to A3 documents. On examination of pleadings and evidence we are framing the following issues.
- Whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing the complaint on deficiency in service against the opposite party and if so what are the reliefs?
Point No.1
The complainant alleges that he had entrusted his vehicle MarutiOmni Van with registration No.KL-04-2967 with the opposite party for repairing its small complaints as the opposite party charged an exorbitant amount and inordinate delay in completing the work, the complainant had to suffer lots of sufferings and mental stress. The opposite party denying all the allegations in the compliant has stated that the vehicle needed major engine works because of the work using old gear box. The delay of 11 days was caused not because of his default but the delay was made by the complainant in supplying the necessary spare parts. Moreover the complainant insisted to replace the defective gear box with a scrap gear box instead of repairing the defective one. The mismatch of the engine and scrap gear box also caused delay in completing the work. Moreover the usual expense for a major work like engine work and gear box work was above Rs.10,000/-. But the opposite party charged only Rs.6,886/-.
Here on perusal of the evidence on record we find that the complainant has produced only the bills issued by the opposite party. The complainant ought to have produced some standard for the rates for the works done by the oppositeparty. The complainant has not produced any standard of rates fixed by any authority. It is the burden of the complainant to prove that the amounts charged by the opposite parties are exorbitant. The complainant has not produced any job card as per a previous discussion between the complainant and the opposite party. The opposite party has explained all the works done by him in detail in his version. There is no cogent evidence produced by the complainant to rebut the opposite party’s contention. We find that the complainant has failed to establish that the opposite party has over charged him.
Another allegation by the complainant is that the opposite party had made inordinate delay in delivering the vehicle after work. But the opposite party has forwarded several reasons for the delay which were not disputed by the complainant with any kind of evidence. The complainant has not initiated any steps to provethat the works done by the opposite party were unnecessary and he was overcharged. No opinion of any expert was sought. No witness has been examined.
Hence we see no merit in this complaint and we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30thday of March, 2021.
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 :Copy of RC book (KL-04-L-2967)
A2 :Cash bill dtd.23-04-18 for Rs.5,450/- issued by Prabha Automotive centre
A3 : Bill dtd.23-04-18 for Rs.1,436/- issued by Prabha Automotive centre
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
