THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No. 277/2008 Saturday, the 30th day of January, 2010. Petitioner : P.J. Joseph Pazhayakalayil House, Mannar, Poozhikol P.O Kaduthuruthi, Vaikom. (By Adv. Avaneesh V.N) Vs. Opposite parties : 1) Jomon, 2) Shijo, Proprietors, Mauti Land, Maruti Service Centre, Opp. Side of the Govt. School Kaduthuruthi P.O (By Adv. Jolly Joseph) O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner’s is as follows: Petitioner entrusted his Maruthi 800 car bearing registration No. KL 2 E 6286 to the opposite party for repairing. Opposite party at the time of entrustment agreed that entire maintenance work will be completed within one month. Opposite party return back the vehicle after maintenance only after six months. Opposite party claimed an amount of Rs. 52310/- as maintenance charges . According to the petitioner, opposite party had not replaced the parts as per detailed bill issued by the opposite party to the petitioner. Further more the replaced parts were not shown to the petitioner at the time of return of the vehicle back. Petitioner had to spent some more amount for repairing the vehicle by entrusting it to another work shop. Petitioner filed a complaint to the Kaduthuruthi Police Station for the cheating committed by opposite party. According to -2- the petitioner the act of the opposite party is a deceptive practice. So, petitioner prays for a direction for refund of Rs. 16,000/- and also he claims cost and compensation. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party bills were issued legally at the time return of vehicle. They contented that due to accident vehicle was become useless. Vehicle was towed by the opposite party from the place of accident to the work shop and as such an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was charged to the petitioner as toying charges and labour charges. According to opposite party they never promised to complete maintenance work for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Opposite party contented that bills for Rs. 52644/- given to the petitioner for maintenance charges is legal and the petitioner is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 21,644/- to the opposite party. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A8 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite parties. Point No. 1 Opposite party in paragraph ‘6’ of their affidavit avered that an amount of Rs. 52624/- is due to them as maintenance charges. Opposite party produced quotation and bill Dtd: 5..9..2008, said document were marked as Ext. B1 and B2 series documents. -3- As per Ext. B1 & B2 the total amount will come to Rs. 72,488 Even though the opposite party has a definite case that some of the spare parts were purchased and replaced. But no such bills were produced. According to opposite party vehicle was entrusted to the petitioner after repairing on 3..6..2008. But Ext. B1 and B2 series documents are Dtd. 5..9..2008. So, inference that can be drawn is that Ext. B1 and B2 were subsequently fabricated documents. Petitioner produced a copy of the petition filed by the opposite party to the Chairman Vaikom Taluk Legal Service Committee. Said document is marked as Ext. A7. From Ext. A7 it can be seen that the opposite parties demand with regard to maintenance of the car is Rs. 43,000/-. So, from opposite party’s version, counter affidavit and evidence adduced it can be seen that opposite party has no consistant case with regard to the cost of maintenance . So, in our view opposite party adopts unfair method and deceptive practice . So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for relief sought for. In the result the opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party. Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of proceedings. Opposite party is further ordered under section 14 (6) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to discontinue the unfair trade practice and not to repeat the same. The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and -4- pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the Petitioner Ext. A1: Bill No. 11788 Dtd: 23..10..2008 issued from Mylaparampil Motors. Ext. A2: Bill No. 4800 Dtd: 25..10..2008 issued by K.V. Agencies, Muttuchira. Ext. A3: Bill No. 1988 of Alan Tyres Ext. A4: Job order No. 9263 issued from Mylaparampil Motors. Ext. A5: Bill Dtd: 11..9..2008 issued by high light Auto Electricals. Ext. A6: Copy of Petition submitted to S.I of Police, Kaduthuruthy. Ext. A7: Copy of petition given to Vaikom Taluk Legal Service Committee Chairman Ext. A8: Copy of bill No. 85 Dtd: 28..8..2008 issued from Maruti Land Documents for the opposite parties Ext. B1: Quotation for vehicle bearing No. KL-2E 6786 Ext. B2: Bill Dtd: 5..9..2008 issued from Maruti Land. By Order, Senior Superintendent. amp/ 4 cs.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
