DOF.19.2.2009

 DOO. 21.6.2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the 21^st day of  June   2010

CC.55/2009

P.K.Raghavan,

‘Shirag,

P.O.Pallikunnu,

Kannur Dist.

(Rep. ByAdv.Deepak C)                                                                      Complainant

Manager,

Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd.,

Near Elayavoor Village Office,                                                  Opposite party

P.O.Chovva,

Kannur Dist.

(Rep. by Adv.M.Govindankutty)

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

            This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to repay an amount of Rs.7, 494.64 with Rs.10, 000/- as compensation.

            The complainant’s case is that due to overheat and clutch problem, he had handed over his Maruthi 800 car having No.KL.13.C.6527 on 7.11.08 and after the repair the opposite party collected Rs.3211.79 and delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 8.11.08. But on 18.11.08 while his journey from Podikundu to Taliparmaba in order to attend a conference his vehicle fully break down due to overheat and clutch problem and the complainant handed over the vehicle to Pioneer Auto and Engineering work at Kannur and get it repaired for a cost of Rs.4282.85. Due to defect of the vehicle he has failed to attend the meeting on 18.11.08 and hence he lost Rs.10, 000/-. According to the complainant the opposite party has not repaired the car on 8.11.08 and due to this the complainant suffered a lot of mental and physical agony and an amount of Rs.7, 494.64. So he had issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party. But the opposite party has neither issued any reply nor paid the amount. Hence this complaint.

            Upon receiving the notice from the Forum the opposite party appeared and filed his version.

            The opposite party admits that the complainant’s car having No.KL.13/C.6527 was brought before him due to overheat and clutch problem on 7.11.08 and immediately on receiving the vehicle, the supervisor of the company checked the vehicle and noted the complaint in the job order maintaining  by the opposite party having job order No.7954 and the damages noted are damages in  clutch set, coolant and radiator flushing and the supervisor of the opposite party told the complainant that those repairs are necessary for the vehicle and the opposite party carried out the repairing work as agreed by the complainant. The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle on 8.11.08 after payment of Rs.3, 211/- towards the charge of repairing and value of replaced spare parts and the complainant accorded full satisfaction to the work done by opposite party. The opposite party denies the allegation that on 8.11.08, the vehicle was completely break down while his journey from Podikundu to Taliparamba. According to opposite party if there is such incident the primary duty of the complainant is to report the matter and to produce the vehicle to them. But instead of reporting the matter to opposite party he got it repaired from M/s. Pioneer Auto and Engineering works and the opposite party disputes the alleged work done by Pioneer Auto and Engineering works and  contended that  the documents produced are  concocted only for the purpose of the case.

            The opposite party also denies the allegations that due to defect in the vehicle, he could not attend the meeting on 8.11.08 and lost an incentive of Rs.10,000/- and also denied the allegation that due to the illegal act, complainant suffered mental and physical agony and loss to a total amount of Rs.7,494.64. According to opposite party he suspects some foul play since there is some unhealthy competition prevailed in the automobile workshops and service centers. The opposite party had contacted the complainant after receiving the lawyer notice and the complainant submitted that the lawyer notice was sent only to threaten. Opposite party and he assured that he will not take any further action and hence the opposite party could not sent reply. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief since there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            On the above pleadings the following issues have raised for consideration:-

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3. Relief and cost.

            The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Dw1 and Exts.A1 to A4.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

            The case of the complaint is that even though he had repaired his car having No.Kl13/C/6527 from opposite party on 7.11.08 , it again  fully breakdown on 18.11.08 while he was on his journey from Podikundu to Taliparamba in order to attend an official meeting, since he is an agent of Milk Federation, Karnataka and the vehicle was repaired from Pioneer Auto and Engineering works, Kannur2 and incurred a loss of Rs.7,494.64 and suffered mental and physical agony and to prove his case he has produced Exts.A1 i.e. bill dt.7.11.08 issued by opposite party, Ext.A2 bill dt.20.11.08 issued by Pioneer Auto and Engineering works, A3 copy of lawyer notice and A4 is the postal receipt. In order to disprove the case the opposite party examined  DW1 on his part. The opposite party admits Et.A1 i.e. the bill dt.7.11.08 issued by them after the repair. But the opposite party denied the incident that the vehicle of the complainant was fully broken down. According to opposite party it is a concocted story due to the unhealthy competition prevailed in the automobile work shops and service centers. It is true that there is no evidence before us to prove that the vehicle was break down on 18.11.08. The complainant has not taken any steps to prove that he had repaired the vehicle from Pioneer Auto & Engineering works as per Ext.A2 bill, since the Ext.A2 bill was disputed by the opposite party. The burden of proof is upon the complainant to prove that he had repaired the vehicle from Pioneer Auto & Engineering works after the break down as described by him. He can at least examine the person who had issued Ext.A2 bill. More over no expert opinion is also before us. The complainant deposed that  9.11.08 apX 17.11.08 hsc Cu ImÀ Rm³ D]-tbm-Kn-¨n-cp-¶n-Ã.B ka-b¯v _m-¦-fp-cn-em-bn-cp-¶p. 18.11.08\p Xfn-¸-d-T-]n  tIm¬^-d³kp-­m-bn-cp¶p F¶p ImWn-¡p¶ tcJ lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«n-Ã. So the complainant failed to produce the supporting documents to prove his case. Above all the complainant has a bounden duty to inform the break down of the car on 18.11.08 to the opposite party since it was repaired from them on 8.11.08 and he is using the car only on 18.11.08 after repair on 8.11.08. This was also not done by the complainant. The complainant failed miserably to substantiate his case by producing relevant documents and examining the relevant witnesses. So we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. No cost.

                                    Sd/-                             Sd/-                           Sd/-

President                      Member                       Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1 & 2.Cash bill Dt.8.11.08 and 20.11.08 issued by OP

A3.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

A4.Postal  receipt

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite party

DW1.Rajesh.A.S.

                                                                                    /forwarded by order/

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur