D.O.F. 07.12.2011
D.O.O. 27.03.2012
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 27th day of March, 2012.
C.C.No.380/2011
Jose Akkal,
Akkal House,
Kakkayangad P.O., : Complainant
Peravoor (Via)
Kannur – 670 673.
The Manager,
Speed Automobiles,
Nr. S.B.T., : Opposite Party
Thottada P.O.,
Kannur
O R D E R
Sri. K. Gopalan, President.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 3,00,000 as compensation.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows. Complainant entrusted his vehicle having No.KL13/H 5534 to the speed Automobiles/opposite party for the repair work. The vehicle returned on 18.08.2011 without actually carrying out the repairs. The vehicle was not under running condition and the same was informed to Sri. V.P. Sajeevan, who is incharge of Speed Automobiles. On mediation of certain social workers including Panchayath President. On 22.08.2011 Sri. Sjeevan ensured to repair the vehicle within three days. But no repair was done as he had promised, eventhough he went there several times and contacted repeatedly over phone. At last on 27.09.2011, the 37th day of entrustment it was informed that the vehicle was repaired. The complainant took vehicle and while running within a distance of 2 Km the vehicle became defective and could not proceed further. It was informed to Sri. V.P. Sajeevan then and there. He came to spot and convinced the condition. But he reluctant to take the vehicle and carry on necessary repairs. Sri. Sajeevan had received altogether ` 26,906 towards repair work. Apart from the loss of this amount he has suffered both economic loss and mental strain since he was not able to use the vehicle when the vehicle was needed for him. He could not even take his sister to hospital on snake bite immediately. So also he was very much suffered to take his old mother to hospital. All these loss happened to be suffered due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint.
After receiving the complaint Forum sent notice to opposite party. But opposite party did not take care to turn up. Acknowledgment returned. Since he was served properly his name was called absent in open Forum and set exparte. Matter was posted for exparte evidence and on that day complainant adduced evidence by means of chief affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A6.
The main point to be discussed is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and if so, what is the extent of damage caused to the complainant.
Complainant filed evidence affidavit in tune with his pleadings. It is stated that the complainant entrusted his vehicle KL-13/H 55-34 TEMPO TRAX 2002 model to opposite party for repair on 10.08.2011. The vehicle was returned on 18.08.2011 saying that the repair was done. It is further stated that opposite party has received ` 17,680 saying that all the spare parts were changed to carry out repair. But the vehicle was not repaired actually and complainant took the vehicle back to house with bad condition. The opposite party damaged the audo meter which reveals they have used the vehicle for their use and the vehicle returned to complainant in bad condition. The president of the Consumer Samithi, social worker and Ex-Panchayath President Chandran Pattuvam and the electrician Vilson etc were interfered in the matter and discussed with opposite party. Complainant again taken the vehicle to opposite party on 22.08.11 and opposite party promised to repair the vehicle within three days. But they did not keep their promise. Complaint went to them many time and also contacted over phone but they were managed to escape one way or the other. The affidavit evidence further stated that on 27.09.2011 he went to workshop as they called and took vehicle by paying ` 296. But while running the vehicle showed shivering and 3rd and reverse gear slipped. He could not run the vehicle due to these defects. Mr. V.P. Sajeevan was informed and he saw the vehicle. Even after convincing the same he did not repaired the vehicle. He has also adduce evidence that the opposite party had received ` 26,906 towards repairing charges.
Ext.A1 shows receipt for an amount of ` 7,000 on 22.08.2011 issued by speed automobiles. Ext.A2 is a cash memo for an amount of `1930 on 29.08.2011. Ext.A3 is the retail invoice (cash) for a total amount of ` 17,660. Ext.A11 is another bill issued by opposite party on 27.09.2011. These documents Ext.A1 to A4 and the evidence given by complainants reveals that opposite party did not attended the vehicle of the complainant properly. The opposite party did not reply to the notice of the complaint. Complainant has produced the notice copy and acknowledgment, Ext.A6. Opposite party also received notice from the Forum. But he did not take care to appear before the Forum. Under such circumstance there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence given by the complainant, until and unless it is disproved.
On consideration of facts and circumstances of the case we are under the impression that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and hence opposite party is liable to return the bill amount `26,590 received by him for repair work to complainant. Complainant also is entitled to get an amount 2500 as compensation together with ` 1000 as litigation expenses. Order passed accordingly.
In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to return the bill amount ` 26,590 (Rupees Twenty six thousand five hundred and ninety only) received by him for repair work and an amount of ` 2500 (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as compensation together with ` 1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as litigation cost within one month from the date of this order failing which complainant is entitled to get also interest @ 12% from the date of this order till realization of the amount. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of one month as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/-
President Member
Dissenting order rendered by Jessy M.D., Member, in the above case:
I disagree with the finding rendered by learned President in the above case. Merely because the opposite party is exparte, an order cannot be granted in favour of the complainant believing that whatever told by him is gospel truth. The complainant has the duty to convince the Forum that actual damage was sustained to him due to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party by adducing evidence. Mere production of some bills and vouchers were only shows that some mechanical works were done by opposite party. The model number of the vehicle is not seen mentioned in the complaint. No document is produced to prove the same. From the registration number we can presume that it is 2001 model vehicle. Old model Temo Trax vehicles exhibits trouble and said brand of vehicles are almost out from the road. Oral submission that due to vibration, the vehicle could not be driven is not at all sufficient to hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Complainant has to take out on expert commission to inspect the vehicle and to obtain a report regarding the nature of mechanical work done by opposite party and to assess the actual complaint of his vehicle. Without proving the same Forum cannot grant an order directing to refund the entire bill amount with compensation. The method adopted by complainant to prove his case is also not proper. There is no authority or authenticity to issue Ext.A5 letter to the President of the Forum. Hence the actual loss if any sustained to the complainant is not assessed properly, the above complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Sd/- Member
Accepting majority opinion the order passed in favour of the complainant. The opposite party is directed to comply the majority order.
Sd/-
President
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Receipt dated 22.08.2011.
A2. Bill dated 29.08.11.
A3. Bill dated 18.08.2011.
A4. Bill dated 27.09.2011.
A5. Document submitted by Farmer’s Club, Kakkayangad.
A6. Acknowledgment card.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
