Kerala

Kottayam

CC/141/2010

Joseph P.S - Complainant(s)

Versus

St.Antony's Motors - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jul 2010

ORDER


KottayamConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Civil Station, Kottayam
CONSUMER CASE NO. 141 of 2010
1. Joseph P.SParambath(H),Madappally(P.O),ChanganacherryKottayamKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. St.Antony's MotorsVadavathoor(P.O)KottayamKerala2. Tata Motors LtdMumbai,Maharashtra ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 27 Jul 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
 
            The case of the complainant presented on 4..6..2010 is as follows:
            He had entrusted a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-33A 2066 to the 1st opposite party for repairing works on 14..4..2010. The 1st opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 2nd opposite party. At the time of entrusting the vehicle the opposite party assured that within 10 days the vehicle would be returned  after repairs. There after, several times  the complainant demanded the vehicle from the opposite party. But the opposite party neither did   anything nor returned  the vehicle after repairs till date. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not to returning  the vehicle. Hence this complaint.
            The notices were served with the opposite parties. They did not appear either in person or through their counsel even after accepting the notice from this forum. Hence the opposite parties set ex-parte.
-2-
            The complainant was examined as PW1.
            Heard complainant. We have gone through the complaint and evidence. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not returned the vehicle after repairs within   10 days time as assured by them.  According to him there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant deposed that the vehicle was returned after repair on 19..6..2010 (PW 1).   Moreover the complainant has not a case that the alleged repairs was not proper. The only complaint is with regards to the delay in handing over the vehicle after repairs. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that what was the actual loss he sustained. However, the case of the complainant is un-challenged by the opposite party. So, we have no reasons to disbelieve the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed. 
            In the result the complaint is allowed as follows:
            We direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation for inconvenience and pay Rs. 1000/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
            The order shall not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment.
 
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan,Member                     Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
            Smt. Bindu M. Thomas, Member                      Sd/-
 
By Order

, , ,