O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: Complainant purchased a 2009 Model Tata Vista Car bearing Reg.No.KL-33 A-9397 from the 1st owner. Opposite party is an automobile service centre namely Tata Focus Automobiles. On 18.02.2015, complainant approached the service centre of the opposite party with a complaint of front brake overheating. At that time, all 5 tyres including the stepeny tyre were Bridgestone Tyres and the front two tyres were comparatively new. As per the advice of the service personnel complainant kept the vehicle in the service centre for one day. On the next day complainant taken delivery of the vehicle by paying Rs.2,880/-.
3. On 04.03.2015, while complainant washing the car he noticed that front two tyres of Bridgestone were replaced and J.K tyres were fitted. Complainant filed complaint before the police station regarding this matter. But they have not taken any earnest step for redressing his grievance. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting the replaced bridge stone tyres along with cost and compensation of Rs.2,000/-.
4. In this case, opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions: Opposite party admit that complainant had brought his vehicle to the workshop with a complaint of front wheel overheating. While entrusting the vehicle the service personnel in the workshop noticed that the front two tyres of the vehicle were J.K tyres and the rear two tyres and the stepeny were Bridgestone tyres. Service Personnel in the workshop had attended the complaint and the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle on 19.02.2015 after convinced of the work done and expressing satisfaction over the same.
5. Again on 21.02.2015 complainant brought his vehicle to the workshop complaining that the front wheel was getting overheated. Service personnel in the workshop had examined the vehicle and conducted a test drive with the complainant and convinced him that there was no complaint of overheating as suspected by him. Complainant had being convinced of the facts and taken delivery of the vehicle.
6. On 06.03.2015 complainant had come to the workshop of the opposite party with members of his taxi union alleging that the front tyres of his vehicle had been replaced by the opposite party. Again complainant filed a petition before Aranmula Police Station. But convincing the facts police dropped all further proceedings. It is pertinent to note that neither on 19.02.2015 or on 21.02.2015 the complainant had no complaint that the tyres of his vehicle had been replaced. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
8. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Ext.A1 series to A4. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
9. The Point:- Complainant’s allegation against the opposite party is that he had entrusted his car with opposite party with the complaint of front brake overheating. At the time of giving the car all tyres including the stepeny tyre was Bridgestone. But opposite party replaced the front two tyres with J.K tyres instead of his Bridgestone. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service in which they are liable to the complainant.
10. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 series to Ext.A4. Ext.A1 series are the car identification record of KL-33A-9397 Indica Vista Car issued to 1st owner Jobymon on 17.02.2000. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of job slip dated 18.02.2015 of the opposite party. Ext.A3 is the photocopy of Tax Invoice of the opposite party dated 19.02.2015 for Rs.2,880/-. Ext.A4 is the photocopy of the R.C. Book in the name of the complainant.
11. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that complainant brought his vehicle to the workshop of the opposite party on 18.02.2015 and 21.02.2015 with the complaint of front wheel overheating. The service personnel attended the complaint and complainant taken delivery of the vehicle expressing satisfaction over the same. Neither on 19.02.2015 or on 21.02.2015 complainant raised the complaint that the tyres of his vehicle had been replaced. It was only on 06.03.2015 he raised such a complaint. There is no merits or basis in the allegation of the complainant and the opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant.
12. In order to prove the case of the opposite party, no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party. But they cross-examined the complainant.
13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that on 18.02.2015 complainant entrusted his vehicle to the opposite party and they issued a bill of Rs.2,880/- to the complainant. The allegation of the complainant is that, while entrusting the vehicle his vehicles 5 tyres including the stepeny tyre was Bridgestone tyres. But the opposite party replaced the front two tyres. Even though, he had produced 4 documents, there is no documentary evidence, to support his allegation. Ext.A1(3) is the only document related to the tyre. It is issued on 2009 to the 1st owner Jobymon. It is not sufficient to prove that at the time of giving the vehicle to the opposite party for repair on 18.02.2015 the car carries Bridgestone tyres.
14. In the circumstances and in the absence of cogent evidence we cannot find any deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint is not allowable.
15. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2015.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member – I)
Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : K.N. Rajagopalan Nair
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 series : Car identification record of KL-33A-9397 Indica Vista
Car issued to 1st owner Jobymon on 17.02.2000.
A2 : Photocopy of job slip dated 18.02.2015 of the opposite party.
A3 : Photocopy of Tax Invoice of the opposite party dated 19.02.2015
for Rs.2,880/-.
A4 : Photocopy of the R.C. Book in the name of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) K.N. Rajagopalan Nair, Kunnathu Malayil House,
Thittamel, Near Aramana, Chengannur.P.O – 689 121,
Alapuzha Dist.
(2) Manager, Tata Focuz Automobile Service Ltd.,
Pathanamthitta Road, Thekkemala.P.O., Kozhencherry.
(3) The Stock File.
