DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th th day of November 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
CC/12/2020
Date of Filing: 18.01.2020
Ramabhadran
S/o Late Damodara Pisharady
Bhama mandiram,
Cheraya P.O,
Kongad, Palakkad
(By Adv. M.P. Ravi & M.J Vince) - Complainant
Vs
The Manager
M/s Ghani Motors Service Centre,
Near sub Register Office,
Chunnambuthara Road,Palakkad.
(By Adv. P. K.Dileep)
- Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
The complainant entrusted his Motor Cycle bearing Reg .No: KL- 09- AG 2227 with the opposite party for repairing the defect which happened due to a fall. The opposite party assured to repair the vehicle within a week and informed him that the cost of repair will be around Rs. 7500/-. The complainant approached the opposite party for getting his vehicle after a week; but was informed that it was not repaired due to unavailability of spare parts. Finally after repeated requests of the complainant over telephone and in person the vehicle was returned to him after repair on 22.11.2019. The opposite party took almost 40 days to repair and return the vehicle. When the vehicle was delivered, the opposite party issued a bill of Rs. 8432/-. They charged an excess amount of Rs. 1000/- than the initially agreed amount. When the complainant checked the vehicle he found that the lights were not functioning and horn was not working. The opposite party did some repair and informed him that the defects are cured. The complainant noticed that side box cover under the petrol tank was broken and the ignition key was not working properly after the repair. He asked the opposite party to repair it; but the opposite party was not ready to rectify it and asked him to take the vehicle.
The complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle as the defects were not rectified by the opposite party. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant could not use the vehicle for long period.
The complainant who is a field worker had to depend on other transportations and incurred financial loss due to this. He had undergone mental agony due to the conduct of the opposite parties in not repairing the vehicle in time and not curing the defects noticed by the complainant. The complainant had caused issuance of a lawyer notice for which the opposite party send reply stating false allegations.
So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to repair the vehicle at their cost and make it road worthy and to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for the financial loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay the cost of this complaint.
2. Complaint was admitted and notice issued to opposite party. The opposite
party entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The main contentions in the version of the opposite party is as follows:
They admit that complainant entrusted his Motor Cycle with the opposite party for repairing it. The opposite party after inspecting the vehicle noted the defects and informed the complainant that the defective parts which are to be replaced are out of stock and he has to wait for at least one month for getting those parts from the company. The complainant agreed to that and entrusted the vehicle for repair. When the opposite party got the parts from the company, they at once replaced it made the vehicle ready for delivery. On 22.11.2019, the complainant after inspecting the vehicle took it and paid the entire bill amount. But he returned the vehicle on the same day saying that there are some other defects which are to be cured and asked the opposite party to refund the amount paid by him.
On inspection, the opposite party could not find the defects alleged by the complainant. The opposite party’s staff inspected the vehicle by driving it in front of the complainant and they did not find any defect. But the complainant was adamant that he will take the vehicle on repayment of the entire bill amount and he left the vehicle in opposite party’s premises. They contacted the complainant many times; but he did not take the vehicle and issued a lawyer notice stating false allegations. The complaint is false frivolous and it is to be dismissed with their cost.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration.
1. Whether there is any Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
3. Reliefs as cost and compensation.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence and Exhibit A1 to A5 (A4 in series) were marked from his side. Opposite party did not file proof affidavit and no documents were produced from their side. Evidence closed. Complainant filed notes of argument. Heard.
6. Point No:1
The complaint averment is to the effect the complainant entrusted his vehicle for repairing the defects caused to the vehicle due to a fall on 11.10.2019. The opposite party promised to repair it within a week and informed the complainant that the approximate cost of repair will be Rs. 7500/-. But when approached after one week, the opposite party told him that the spare parts are not available and they will repair and deliver the vehicle immediately on getting the spare parts. The opposite party returned the vehicle on 22.11.2019, ie after a lapse of 40 days and he charged 8432/- for the repair which is in excess of the initially agreed amount.
The complainant produced the bills issued by the opposite parties for repairing the vehicle which is marked as Exhibit A3. Exhibit A3 shows a payment of Rs. 8432/-.
7. The complainant’s grievance is that when he checked the Motor Cycle given after repair, he found the lights and horn not in working condition. On informing about this, the opposite party took the vehicle to the workshop and returned it saying that the defects are rectified. Then the complainant noticed that the side box cover under petrol tank was broken and the ignition key was not working properly. He asked the opposite party to rectify it, but the opposite party was not willing to repair it and their staff threatened him to take the vehicle. The complainant did not take the vehicle as it was not repaired properly.
8. The opposite party contended that on entrusting the vehicle for repair, they informed the complainant that the spare parts required for replacing are out of stock and it will take around one month for getting the original parts from the company. The complainant agreed to that and entrusted his vehicle with them. They repaired it immediately on getting the spare parts from the company and the complainant took the vehicle on being completely satisfied with their work. He paid the entire bill amount after checking the vehicle. But he came to the opposite party on the same day alleging some defects in the vehicle and asked for the refund of the bill amount. On inspection, the opposite party could not find any defect. The opposite party’s staff drove the vehicle in front of the complainant. The complainant was not ready to take the vehicle and left it on their premises.
9. Other than these submissions, no evidence is forthcoming as to the condition of the vehicle. The complainant filed an IA 140/21 dated 14.09.2021 seeking to get the vehicle in question repaired and it was allowed. After that there was no submission from either parties as to whether the vehicle was repaired and returned to the complainant.
10. On clarification regarding the outcome of the IA during hearing, the complainant’s counsel submitted that the opposite party had repaired the vehicle and the cost of repair was paid to the opposite party directly.
11. The opposite party did not appear and submit their part. The case was posted for their affidavit from 10.05.21 onwards. They did not file proof affidavit and adduce evidence to show that they have repaired the vehicle properly.
As per the submission made by the complainant’s counsel, the vehicle was repaired as per the order in IA. It took long period for them to repair the vehicle. They could have repaired it earlier or could have adduced evidence to show that the vehicle in question is free from defects. Only after filing the IA before the Commission, they repaired the vehicle. This is a Deficiency in service on their part. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Points 2and 3
12. Definitely the Deficiency in service on the part of the of the opposite party caused the complainant to file this complaint incurring financial loss, mental agony and other inconveniences. The opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for that.
From the submissions, it is clear that the complainant’s vehicle is repaired and made it roadworthy.
So the complainant’s prayer is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2500/- for their Deficiency in service and Rs. 2500/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and 5000/- as cost .
The opposite party shall comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof to the complainant till date of final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 30th day of November 2022.
Vinay Menon V
President
Vidya.A
Member
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 –– RC copy of complainant’s vehicle No. KL-09-AG- 2227 dated.
19.12.2013.
Ext.A2 – Insurance copy of complainant’s vehicle dated.23.01.2019.
Ext.A3 – Copy of GST invoices issued by the opposite party to the complainant
dated. 22.11.2019.
Ext.A4(Series) -Lawyer notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite
Party dated: 27.11.2019, postal receipt and A/D card.
Ext. A5 – Reply notice issued on behalf on the opposite party dated: 14.12.2019. Documents marked from the side of Opposite parties - Nil
Witness examined from the side of Complainant - Nil
Witness examined from the side of Opposite parties - Nil
Cost : 5000/-(Five thousand only)
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the
proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection
(Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they be
weeded out.
