By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.198/- an excess price collected from the Complainant by the Opposite party for Airfilter and also to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Complaint in brief:- The Complaint on 13.12.2014, entrusted his wife's vehicle KL 12J 1388 Autorikshaw for repair to the Opposite party. The Opposite party repaired the vehicle and changed the Air filter, Clutch Cable. The Opposite party told the Complainant that the Air filter is of Athul company. But on verification , it is found that the Air filter is not made by Athul company. The Clutch cable is of low length type. The Opposite party could not stop the oil leak of Fire meter joint. The original Air filter is of Yellow colour and having the seal of the company. The Opposite Party used the air filter of SK company and it costs only Rs.130/- to 200/- price. But Opposite party collected Rs.398/- for SK Air filter. The Complainant when complained about this , the Opposite Party was not ready to change the Air filter or to give back the price. The act of Opposite Party is nothing but deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and Opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of Opposite party, the Opposite Party stated that the Opposite Party had sold the vehicle to One V.A. Sujatha and have done 6 free services to the vehicle properly. The Opposite party had given two years warranty to the Engine and Gear Box. But the Complainant serviced the vehicle from private workshops and thereby lost the warranty. The Complainant approached the Opposite party for paid service only for once on 13.05.2014. The Opposite party had done repair on 13.12.2014 on clutch cable, Reverse gear cable, Air filter, Tappet Packing, Fuel pump packing etc to the vehicle. The Opposite party collected Rs.105/- as labour charge. The Opposite party denied all the allegation of the Complainant.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of
Opposite Parties?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- the Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A4. The Complainant filed IA 77/15 for an order permitting him to change the Air filter to fix original air filter. Notice given to Opposite Party and Opposite party filed counter. Heard both sides and IA77/15 is allowed. The Complainant changed the Air filter in the presence of a commissioner appointed by the Forum. The Commissioner reported that the SK Air filter is lesser folding than Athul Air Filter. The Clutch cable replaced on 13.12.2014 is not of exact part. The commissioner stated that the clutch cable and air filter replaced from Opposite party are not a preferred one as ATUL. The frequent leakage of Transmission oil shows the lack of skilled and careful servicing and maintenance. The Opposite party filed objection to Commission Report. Ext.A1 bill shows price of air filter ie Rs.398/-. The case of Complainant is that the SK air filter costs only Rs.130/- to Rs.200/-. But Opposite Party collected Rs.198/- as excess price from the Complainant. Even if the Complainant alleged in the complaint that the Opposite party charged Rs.198/- as excess amount for air filter, the Opposite party did not deny this allegation in the version. It is up to the Opposite Party to prove the real value of SK air filter. The Complainant states that the value for SK air filter is around Rs.130/- to 200/-. He is charged with Rs.398/- for SK air filter. The burden is upon the Opposite Party to prove the real price. But Opposite party is silent regarding this aspect. By considering the commission report it is found that the Opposite party had not given proper and efficient service to the vehicle of the Complainant. So by analysing the entire evidences, the Forum found there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service from the part of Opposite party. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.198/- (Rupees One hundred and Ninety Eight) only an excess amount collected from the Complainant by the Opposite Party towards the price of SK Air filter and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as cost and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as compensation to the Complainant. The Opposite party shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole the sum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 3rd day of August 2015.
Date of Filing:07.01.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Rajesh. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Sreelal. Service Manager, Cruise Motors, Kalpetta.
Exhibits for the complainant
A1. Spares Bill. dt:13.12.2014.
A2. Spares Bill. dt:23.12.2014.
A3. Spares Bill. dt:17.01.2014.
A4. Service Bill. dt:15.03.2014.
C1. Inspection Report. dt:06.04.2015.
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
Nil.
