CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

CC No.51/10

                                                        Friday the 28^th day of October, 2010

 

Petitioner                                                          : Vinod.A.T,

                                                                         Earthukunnel,

                                                                         Velliyappalli PO,

                                                                           Pala.

                                                                         (Adv. K.T.Joseph)

                                                                  Vs.

Opposite party                                                : 1) Royal Bajaj,

                                                                              Mutholi Kavala,

                                                                              Puliyannur PO

.

2)      Siju,

Royal Bajaj,

Puliyannur PO.                             

 

 

 

 

            The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows:-

 

            The complainant entrusted his Autorikshaw bearing No.KL-5-U-2261 on 14/12/09 to the opposite party, who claimed as the authorized agent of Bajaj Company. The opposite party found that the defect of the Autorikshaw was due to engine sound and promised to repair the said defects within 3 days. The opposite party made the complainant purchase a parts worth Rs.1537/- and returned the vehicle on 16/12/09. The opposite parties made the complainant believe that the complaints of the Autorikashaw were rectified and issued bills for Rs.860/- and Rs.1537/- and the said bills were paid by the complainant. But the very same complaint persisted soon the vehicle was handed over to the opposite party on 18/12/09 after receiving Rs.280/- vehicle was returned to the complainant on 31/12/09. After the second repairing work also the engine sound and the connected complaints persisted. So the vehicle complainant was forced to give the vehicle three more times to the opposite party each time the opposite party receive money for the repairing and at last the vehicle was returned to the complainant on 13/1/10. According to the complainant the opposite parties could have repaired the defects of the vehicle by crank resetting, counter wheel refitting etc worth only Rs.500/-. But in this case the complainant was forced to spend Rs.5058/- for this defect. Hence complainant filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice against opposite parties and claimed the refund of Rs.5058/- along with compensation Rs.5000/- and litigation costs.

            Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. According to 1^st opposite party since the vehicle is used for commercial purpose the complainant is not a consumer and petition is not maintainable. According to opposite party the vehicle entrusted to the service station of opposite party 1 was returned after service in showroom condition. petitioner had sold the vehicle to one Satheesh, Kizhakkenediyidathil House, Kozhuvanal, Pala and now the petitioner has no connection with the said vehicle. If at all any complaints persist, according to opposite party 1 that is caused to maintainable done by the petitioner at local workshop, Opposite party states that there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of petition with their cost. 

i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

i)                    Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext.A1 to A14 documents.

            Heard the complainant and perused the documents placed on record by the complainant. The complainant averred that for engine sound of his Autorikshaw opposite parties made the complainant spend Rs.5058/- for the repairing the said complaint. The opposite parties took five times to rectify the said complaint. The complainant further averred that the repairing work which, actually needed an expense of Rs.500/-, was taken to such a high expenditure due to the unfair methods adopted by the opposite party. To evidence various repairing works the complaint produced 3 job cards and various bills. As the opposite parties has not adduced any contra evidence averments of complainant remain unchallenged. In our opinion act of opposite parties in receiving too much of money for a repair work which actually cost only Rs.500/- is a case of unfair trade practice.

            In view of the findings in point no.1 complaint is allowed. As the vehicle is having complaints after the five repairing opposite party is liable to pay excess amount collected.

            In the result the complaint is ordered as follows. The opposite parties will refund Rs.4500/- along with compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost Rs.250/-.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

 

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and

 pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of October, 2010.

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/

 

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

 

 

1)      Ext.A1- Original job card dtd 14/12/09

2)      Ext.A2- Original receipt for Rs.41/-

3)      Ext.A3-Original receipt for Rs.50/-

4)      Ext.A4-Original receipt for Rs.252/-

5)      Ext.A5-Original receipt for Rs.710

6)      Ext.A6-Original receipt dtd 16/12/09

7)      Ext.A7-Original receipt dtd 31/12/09

8)      Ext.A8-Original receipt dtd 1/1/10

9)      Ext.A9-Job Card dtd 1/1/10

10) Ext.10-Original receipt dtd 4/1/10

11) Ext.A11-Job card dtd.11/1/10

12) Ext.A12-office copy of advocate’s notice

13) Ext.A13-postal receipt

14) Ext.A14-Acknowledgement card

 

 

By Order,

 

 

Senior Superintendent.