This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay `850 per day from the date of entrusting the vehicle towards the expense of hiring taxi for his journey and an amount of `15,000 as compensation.

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows :  Complainant purchased a scooter Honda Aviator bearing registration No. Kl-59E/29 from the opposite party on 18.10.2011 for `43,046.  The vehicle met with an accident on 06.12.2011.  Matter was reported to Insurance Company and then the vehicle was entrusted to authorized service centre for repair on 07.12.2011.  The Insurance Company did their part well but did not repair the same even after repeated call to service centre.  The web based complaint to Honda Motors has also not been responded. If it is given to some other workshop the repair work would have been done within one or two day.  But it is not possible because  the spare parts are available only with this agent. Complainant suffered very much and spend huge amount for taxi for his journey.  Hence this complaint for the remedy against the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed memo denying the main allegations of the complainant as follows :  The complainant purchased the alleged vehicle from opposite party on 18.10.11.  The vehicle met with an accident on 06.12.11 and on 07.12.2011 brought to opposite party for repair.  The survey proceedings were completed on 16.12.2011 and the repair work started from 17.12.2011.  The scooter was required to be completely dismantled and checked the frame of the vehicle to see denting etc.   Most of the body parts required dent leveling and repainting.  So it was required more time.  Complainant was told that at least 20 days from 16.12.2011 is required for completing the repair and painting.  There was no failure in answering the queries of complainant.  Opposite party has enough facilities.  Repair works were completed on 26.12.2011 and it was informed over phone.  Complainant came to work shop and he was told that the repair charge including value of spare parts would come to around `4,500.  He did not turned up thereafter but filed this complaint on 04.01.2012 On the day one of appearance opposite party submitted before the Forum that the vehicle was ready on 26.12.2011.   The complainant came to the workshop paid the charge and took the vehicle as per the suggestion of the Forum.  The insured vehicle of the complainant received the insurance amount on account of the incident.  On 25.02.2012 the complainant took the 2^nd free service of his scooter from the opposite party.  There is no merit in this case.  Hence to dismiss the complaint.

On the above pleading the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.         Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2.         Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?

3.         Relief and cost.

Evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1, Ext.A1 to A11 and Ext.B1 to B4.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

          Admittedly complainant entrusted on 07.12.2011 his vehicle which was met with an accident on 06.12.2011.  Complainant’s case is that opposite party did not returned his vehicle repairing the same eventhough repeatedly contacted.  Opposite party on the other hand contended that complainant was told that at least 20 days is required to complete the work.  Repair was completed on 26.12.2011 and the same informed him.  Complainant came to workshop and he was informed about the repair charge.  But he did not turned up thereafter instead filed this complaint.

          However it can be seen that complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 22.02.2012 pending complaint before the Forum.  The vehicle was purchased on 18.10.2011 and met with accident on 06.12.2011.  On 07.12.2011 the vehicle was entrusted to opposite party/authorized agent.  According to complainant the vehicle was ready only on 02.02.2012 and this long delay is the deficiency in service on the part of  opposite party.  Complainant also alleged that opposite party did not even give him estimated delivery time which is a matter of right as a customer.

          The evidence on record goes to show that opposite party failed to give estimated delivery time to complainant.  Ext.A4 customer’s copy/ Gate pass undoubtedly make it clear that the Estimated Delivery Time kept it blank without filling the column, which remains alive as best proof that opposite party failed to give complainant the estimated delivery time.  It is understandable if there is variation but opposite party has the preliminary obligation to give complainant as consumer the estimated delivery time.  It has to be taken into account that the evidence on the part of opposite party does not reveal that it was impossible on the part to give Estimated Delivery Time.  Thus there is no justification for not giving Estimated Delivery Time.  It is nothing but clear sign of unfair trade practice.  Ext.A6 goes to show that vehicle was ready for delivery only on 02.02.2012.  It can be seen that opposite party contented in their version that the repair work was completed on 26.12.2011 and the same was informed.  Opposite party also contended that inspite of several reminders complainant did not turn up.  There is no single piece of paper except Ext.A6 written by Service Manager to show that complainant was informed by opposite party that the vehicle was ready for delivery.  At the same time Ext.A6 proves that the vehicle was ready for delivery from 02.02.2012 only.  The very beginning of the letter of Service Manager is thus “We wish to inform you that your Honda Aviator Scooter Registration No.KL59E29 which met with a major accident is ready for delivery from 02 .02.2012.”  Nothing more is necessary to decide that the vehicle of the complainant was ready for delivery only on 02.02.2012.  The version of opposite party itself shows that the vehicle was brought to the workshop of opposite party on 07.12.2011 for repair. Opposite party admitted that the insurance survey proceedings of the accident vehicle was completed on 16.12.2011 and repair work started from 17.12.11.  If that be so Ext.A6 letter of Service Manager also proves that it took 45 days for completing the repair work.  Opposite party contended that they were informed complainant that it was required 20 days to complete the repair work.  If that is accepted opposite party is bound to deliver the vehicle at least on 10.01.2012.  If they failed to do so that amounts to an admitted delay of another 20 days.  Moreover, the claim of the opposite party that the vehicle was kept ready repaired for delivery on 26.12.2011 is a plain lie and an open attempt to escape from liability.  The Service Manager should have been examined so as to make clear the position of vehicle before 02.02.2012.  Since he was the authority of Ext.A6.  The facts and circumstances together with the documentary evidence undoubtedly make it clear that there is no reason to believe that the vehicle was ready for delivery before 02.02.2012.

          It is also important to see that the amount of repair was only `4645. In the usual course of dealings it can be assumed that the time required for repair practically was much less than what was estimated earlier.  That means the earlier promise of 20 days was not actually required for the performance.  DW1 deposed in cross examination that “Rm\mWv estimate D­m¡nbXv.  C{Xbpw difference hcm³ ImcWw estimate Hät\m«¯n I­t¸mÄ FgpXnbXmWv”.  It can also be assumed that estimate was not prepared seriously.  Even if it is seriously taken the time and money estimated is much greater than that of actually required.  Anyhow the available evidence together with the facts and circumstances reveals that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

          However, the main prayer of the complainant is to allow `850 per day from the date of entrustment of vehicle for repair till the date of delivery.  Complainant claims that this is the amount that he had been spending for traveling.  But unfortunately complainant failed to produce convincing evidence so as to come into conclusion that complainant spent that much amount for his travel.  Complainant also claim for an amount of `15,000 for the inconvenience he has suffered.  Complainant has not taken interest to place evidence for this before the Forum. Without evidence for actual loss it is difficult to assess damages as prayed for.  Complainant failed to produce evidence for the actual loss.  That does not mean that he was not suffered loss at all.  So the Forum can allow only a reasonable amount which we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled for an amount of `5000 as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party together with `500 as cost of this litigation.  Hence the issues No.1 to 3 are found in favour of complainant.

          In the result, complaint is allowed directing opposite party to pay `5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party together with `500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost of this litigation within one month from the date of this order failing which complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

                   Sd/-                      Sd/-

               President               Member         

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Retail invoice.

A2. Road Transportation Receipt dated 03.11.11.

A3. Policy schedule.

A4. Service Centre receipt dated 07.12.11.

A5.  Warranty Registration card.

A6.  Letter issued by 1^st opposite party to complainant.

A7.  Reply from complainant.

A8.  Invoice

A9.  Estimation.

A10.Copy of E-mail.

A11.Copy of Customer complaint details

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.  Copy of identity card.

B2.  Copy of Qualification Certificate.

B3.  Authorisation letter.

B4.  Job Card.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1.  Vimal K.

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT