Kerala

StateCommission

552/2003

A.P.Pushpan - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.N.Sanalkumar - Opp.Party(s)

K.R.Haridas

25 Jun 2008

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 552/2003

A.P.Pushpan
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

T.N.Sanalkumar
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN 3. SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. A.P.Pushpan

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. T.N.Sanalkumar

For the Appellant :
1. K.R.Haridas

For the Respondent :
1. K.T.Thomas



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.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
APPEAL NO.552/03
JUDGMENT DATED.25.06.08
 
PRESENT:-
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                    : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN                 : MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR                       : MEMBER
 
Mr.A.P.Pushpan,
Proprietor, United Auto Centre,
Thodupuzha, Idukki(Dist)                                          : APPELLANT
(By Adv.K.R.Haridas)
          
              Vs
 
Mr.T.N.Sanalkumar,
Thykoottathil Veedu,
Kanjiramattam, KarikkoduVillage,                           : RESPONDENT
Thodupuzha, Idukki(Dist)
(By Adv.K.R.Jayakumar, C.S.Sivaji,
       P.Radhakrishnan & T.N.Sanalkumar)
 
JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
 
     The appellant is the second opposite party in OP.No.208/02 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.17,579/- and also cost of Rs.1500/-
    2. The case of the complainant is that he entrusted his Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.KL 6 A 3954 with the opposite party’s workshop for repairs including engine work. After two weeks, after effecting repairs   the vehicle was returned. Subsequently it was found that the repairs have not been executed properly. The same was informed to the opposite party/appellant but he assured that everything will be fine after some time. Subsequently also the complainant made the opposite party to examine the vehicle. Then the opposite party made him purchase  few more spare parts and effected  some works on 29.1.02.   Thereafter also the vehicle was found to be not in a proper condition. Hence the complainant got the vehicle examined at Auto Care Centre at Thodupuzha, in  another carriage. On examination by the other garage  it was found that  engine  was not done  properly by the opposite party. The complainant had   paid a sum of Rs.21,104.25 for the works related to the engine. The complainant had to pay another sum of Rs.16,978.45 for the works at Auto care Centre. He has sustained a loss of Rs.17,579/- on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. He had also sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party. The appellants/opposite parties had denied all the allegations made. According to him out of the total amount due  a sum of Rs.18,960/- only  was paid by the complainant. Further he had filed a  complaint before the Association and police. According to him it is after plying for about 1000 km that the complainant brought the vehicle to his work shop for oil change and the same was done. According to him  the allegations that the vehicle was subjected to defective engine work  is totally false.
     3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2; exts.P1 to P6; DW1 and Ext.R1 to R5.
      4. The forum has considered the evidence in the matter in toto. The evidence of PW1 is that  after the engine work executed at the work shop of the appellant there  was considerable shortage of engine oil due to the heat inside. The spare parts are purchased vide  Ext.P1(d) bill for the work at the work shop of the opposite party. It is seen that the same materials were purchased again as per P4(b).  PW2 the mechanic of Auto Care Centre the second work shop has testified that the engine work has not been properly done in the workshop of the opposite party. He has given evidence that the bearings were examined at Ernakulam and it was found that the original bearings used at the time of manufacture  of the vehicle is the same. He has stated that the bearings etc  purchased for the works   at the workshop has not been fixed to the engine. It is also noted that  usually once the engine work is  done the vehicle will run for more than 1 lakh km  thereafter without any problems. We find that the forum has considered the evidence properly.    We find that there are  no patent illegalities  in the order of the forum.     In the circumstances the Commission  is not to interfere in the above order. We find that there is no reason to discard the findings of the forum.
       In the result the order of the forum is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.
 
          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
 
 
 
          SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN   : MEMBER
 
 
 
          SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR   : MEMBER
 
 
 
R.AV



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR