DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of March 2019

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

                 : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member                      Date of filing:  18/10/2016

CC/160/2016

Sreejith.V,                                                            

S/o.Venu,

Puthanthara,                                                               -  Complainant                                           

Chittilancherry,                                                                           

Alathur, Palakkad,

678 704.

(By Advs.Sreenath.S & Rohith.K.S

Vs

The Manager,                                                                                                                                            M.S.Motors,

Anjumoorthy P.O,                                                       - Opposite party

Mangalampalam,                                                                                                                          Vadakkencherry,                                                                                                                    Palakkad-678 682.

(By Adv.P.Rajesh)

                                                            O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

The facts of the case are briefly explained as follows. 

In this case the complainant on 23.08.2016 handed over to the opposite party his “Hero Glamour” Motor Cycle bearing Registration Number : KL-49-D-8977 for service and apart from regular service complainant specifically had instructed the opposite party to conduct repairs regarding the chain socket and selfignition of the motor cycle.  Complainant pleads that at the time of handing over the vehicle to the opposite party, the latter made him believe that the estimated cost for the above works would be less than Rs.2,500/- and if any additional amount occurs the opposite party would do such additional work only on getting the permission of the complainant.  Believing the words of the opposite party, the complainant entrusted his vehicle to do regular service along with repairs specifically mentioned above and the opposite party promised to deliver the vehicle after completing the service on 24.08.2016.  According to the complainant he had communicated with the opposite party by phone several times to enquire about the progress of the vehicle and whether any additional works are to be done, but complainant was not informed about any additional works to be conducted or about any additional expenses to be incurred over and above the estimated amount of Rs.2,000/-.  It was only on 24.08.2016 when and the complainant visited the office of the opposite party to collect his vehicle after service, he was given a bill for Rs.7,300/- which was nearly three times the amount of estimate given to the complainant at the time of entrusting the vehicle for service.  When the complainant enquired about the same the opposite party told him that they had carried out various other works and purchased additional spare parts, but according to the complainant, these were done by the opposite party without informing him and getting his consent, inspite of the complainant having contacted the office of the opposite party several times to know about the progress of the work.   Since the opposite party did not inform the complainant about the purchase of additional spare parts, incurring of additional expenses, the complainant was prepared only to pay Rs.2,500/- as per the estimate given to him by the opposite party and the complainant had to borrow an additional amount of Rs.4,800/- (Rs.7,300 – Rs.2,500), from his friend.  Complainant pleads that the opposite party had committed a grave mistake by concealing the actual cost of repair that has to be incurred by the complainant in respect of his above mentioned motor cycle  and due to such act of the opposite party complainant had to borrow Rs.4,800/- being the additional amount issued by the opposite party.  Thus complainant pleads that this act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service as per section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party stating all these on 25.08.2016 and the opposite party sent a reply letter on 09.09.2016 denying the claims of the complainant.  Complainant prays to this Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite party to return to him Rs.4,800/- which the complainant had to pay towards the additional bill issued by the opposite party, to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and loss suffered by him and to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant by way of cost of this proceedings. 

The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party to enter appearance and file version.  In the version filed by the opposite party, the opposite party denies all the averments and allegations in the complaint except those expressly admitted.  The opposite party admits that the complainant has entrusted his Hero Glamour Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KL-49-D-8977 for regular service and repair works but denies that the complainant has specifically instructed the opposite party to carry on repairs with regard to the chain socket and selfignition of his motor cycle alone.  This opposite party also denies the averment of the complainant in his complaint that the opposite party made the complainant believe that the estimated cost for the work would be less than Rs.2,500/- and has to get permission from the complainant in case of additional works.  According to this opposite party the complainant has handed over the motor cycle for regular service and repairs which are found at the time of checking the vehicle by the mechanic.  The opposite party also denies the allegation in the complaint that the complainant had communicated with the opposite party over phone several times to enquire about the progress of the service of his vehicle and expenses and he was not informed about any additional works to be done, of any additional repairs to be carried out, any additional expenses to be incurred over and above Rs.2,500/-.  The opposite party also denies the allegation in the complaint that only on 24.08.2016 when complainant approached the office of the opposite party to collect the vehicle after service, he was given a bill for Rs.7,300/- which was merely thrice the estimated amount given to the complainant at the time of entrusting the vehicle for service.  According to the opposite party, they have not issued any estimate regarding the service and repair of the vehicle at the time of entrustment of the vehicle and the opposite party carried out the works, made the complainant understand about the required amount and only necessary works for the vehicle.  The opposite party never undertook to do the repair works not exceeding Rs.2,500/-.  This opposite party further contends that there is no omission on their part in informing the complainant and there is no promise made by this opposite party to inform the complainant about the work done.  The opposite party is running the showroom and service centre for the last more than ten years and has reputation and goodwill among the public and their customers.  So far no complaint has been raised against the opposite party by anybody.  This opposite party also contends that the work was done by the opposite party as per complainant’s request and the total charges for the work done was Rs.7,397/- which includes Rs.4,588/- for spares, Rs.1,309/- towards labour charges and Rs.1,500/- by way of battery and outside works.  Opposite party contends that there is no deficiency in service committed by them as per section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  According to the opposite party complainant sent a lawyer notice mentioning false allegations against this opposite party which was properly replied through a reply notice.  This opposite party contend that they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant by way of additional bill or compensation and cost.  Hence this opposite party pray to the Hon’ble Forum to accept their contentions and dismiss the complaint with cost and compensatory cost of the opposite party. 

Complainant filed chief affidavit so also the opposite party.  The opposite party filed IA/177/17 to cross examine the complainant and IA was allowed and complainant  was cross examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked from the side of the complainant.  Complainant filed IA/344/2017 to advance the case from 20.11.2017 and IA was allowed and also IA/345/17 to reopen the evidence; additional affidavit was also filed by the complainant.  Complainant filed IA/389/17 to cross examine the opposite party and his application was allowed.  Opposite party filed IA/144/2018 to reopen the evidence and application was allowed.  Opposite party was cross examined as DW1 and both parties were heard.  

The following issues are considered in this case. 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, the relief and cost, available to the complainant?

Issues 1 & 2 in detail. 

            To prove his allegations, against the opposite party the complainant has filed Exts.A1. A2, A3 series, A4 & A5.  Ext.A1 is an invoice dated.24.08.2016 issued by the opposite party to the complainant which shows customer name as “Venu” and address as 2/490 A (14/155), Puthenthara, Alathur, Palakkad, job card number as 22236 – 02 – RJC – 0816 – 4068, invoice number and date as 22236 – 02 – RINU – 0816 4182 dated.24.08.2016, registration number of the vehicle as KL-49-D-8977 model – glamour.  Invoice amount as Rs.5,898/-.  Ext.A2 is the delivery receipt dated.24.08.2016 issued by the opposite party to the complainant which shows: job card number-22236 -02-RJC-0816-4157 registration number as KL-49-F-43, agreed delivery date has 24.08.2016, estimated repair value as Rs.500/-.  Ext.A3 series are Registered lawyer notice dated.25.08.2016 sent to the opposite party by complainant’s counsel along with acknowledgment card which shows that lawyer notice was sent by complainant’s counsel to the opposite party asking the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.4,800/- being the additional bill amount issued to the complainant.  Ext.A4 is the reply notice dated.06.09.2016 sent to the complainant’s counsel by the opposite party’s counsel which shows that there is no deficiency in service on their part as per section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as alleged in the complainants lawyer notice.  Ext.A5 is the RC book of the Hero Glamour Motor Cycle bearing registration number KL-49-D-8977 which shows its brief description such as glamour dealers name as Gayathri Motors, Maker’s name as Hero Motor Corp Ltd, Name of registered owner as Sreejith, Permanent Address as 2/490 A (14/155), Puthenthara, Chittilanchery post, Alathur, Palakkad. 

            From the deposition made by the complainant as PW1 it is clear that “KL-49-D-8977 \¼À DÅ 2013 tamU h­nbmWv FsâXv.  23/08 \mWv sImSp¯Xv.  h­nbpsS BÀ.kn HmWÀ Rm\mWv.  Rm³ h­n kÀÆokn\v sImSp¡p¶ kab¯v 2500/þ cq]bpsS hÀ¡v sN¿m\mWv sImSp¯ncp¶Xv F¶v ImWn¡p¶Xn\pÅ tcJIÄ H¶panÃ.  2,500/þ cq]bn Xmsg hÀ¡v hcpÅq F¶Xv ImWn¡m³ H.]n FÌntaäv H¶pw X¶nÃ.  Rm³ routine Bbn kÀÆokv sN¿n¡mdv ChnsSbmWv.  Rm³ tPmen Øe¯v h­n sIm­v t]mbn«nÃ.  h­nbpsS ]ptcmKXnsbIpdn¨v t^mWneqsS At\zjn¨p F¶v ImWn¡p¶Xn\pÅ tcJIÄ lmPcm¡nbn«nÃ.  ChnsS lmPcm¡nb tcJIÄ (Exts.A1&A2) Fsâ h­nbpsS tcJIÄ Xs¶bmWv.  Ext.A1 tcJbn BÀ.kn HmWÀ thWp F¶mWv ImWn¨n«pffXv.  Ext.A2  ImWp¶Xv sI.FÂ.49F^v43 F¶ h­nbpsS tcJbmWv 7,800/þ cq]bpsS km[\§Ä amäntbm F¶v F\n¡dnbnÃ.  Fs¶ Adnbn¡msX amän F¶XmWv Fsâ tIkv.  h­nbpsS sSIv\n¡Â Bbn«pÅ Imcy§Ä F\n¡dnbnÃ.  AXpsIm­v km[\§Ä amäntbm Fs¶\n¡dnbnÃ.  Ext.A1  ]dªncn¡p¶Xv Fsâ h­nbpsS \¼À BWv.  Ext.A2 F\n¡v h­n dn¸bdn\v sImSp¯ sUenhdn¡v sN¶t¸mÄ H.]n X¶ dko]väv BWv AXv AXn ImWn¨ncn¡p¶ h­nbpsS \¼À FsâXÃ.  Ext.A1  ImWn¨ncn¡p¶Xv IÌaÀ s\bnw BWv.  Repair \v sImSp¡m³ t]mbXv Rm\pw Fsâ Aѳ thWphpw IqSnbmWv:” 

            From the affidavits and documentary evidences produced by both the parties we observe that complainant’s vehicle registration number is KL-49-D-8977 which is quite clear from the RC book of the Hero Glamour Motor Cycle whose legal owner is the complainant himself (as per Ext.A5).  As per the delivery receipt (Ext.A2) dated.24.08.2016 issued by the opposite party to the complainant, registration number of the concerned vehicle is KL-49-F-43.  From DW1 deposition also before this Forum it is evident that “]cmXn¡mcs\ Rm³ AndbnÃ.  Fsâ ASp¯v h­n G¸n¨Xv thWp F¶ hyànbmWv.  Ext.A1 tcJ{]Imcw h­n dn¸bÀ sN¿m³ R§sf G¸n¨Xv thWp F¶ BfmWv, AÃmsX CXnse ]cmXn¡mc³ AÃ.  Ext.A2 {]ImcapÅ h­nbpsS \¼À KL-49-F-43 BWv.  B h­nbpsS tPm_v ImÀUnsâ IÌaÀ ]okmWv CXv.  ]cmXnbn ]dªncn¡p¶ h­nbpsS tPm_v ImÀUv Aà CXv.  Ext.A2  ImÀUv Fsâ Øm]\¯n \n¶pw FSp¯ tPm_v ImÀUv Xs¶bmWv.  CXv Cu ]cmXnbn DÅ h­nbpsS tPm_v ImÀUv AÃ"".  It is also confirmed that complainant’s vehicle number KL-49-D-8977 was not given for repair and serviced as per Ext.A2, which the complainant cannot prove otherwise, but KL-49-F-43 was seen repaired and serviced as per Ext.A2 & DW1’s deposition.  Therefore we view that complainant cannot raise any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite party in respect of the vehicle number KL-49-D-8977 (whose registered owner is the complainant himself), which is seen not to have been repaired and serviced with the opposite party and the repaired and serviced vehicle’s RC owner is not the complainant, but Mr.Venu whose vehicle number KL-49-F-43 which was actually seen repaired and serviced.  We also view that, since complainant’s vehicle is not seen repaired and serviced by the opposite party complainant cannot raise other issues arising in this case against the opposite party. 

Under these circumstances the complaint is dismissed. 

            Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of March, 2019.

                        Sd/-             

                   Shiny.P.R

                   President

                     Sd/-          

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                  Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1  - Invoice no.22236-02-RINV-0816-4182 dated.24.08.2016 issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s father Venu in respect of Vehicle Number KL-49-D-8977

Ext.A2  -  Delivery receipt dated.24.08.2016 issued by the opposite party to the          complainant (Job card number - 22236-02-RJC-0816-4157) in respect of vehicle

              Number – KL-49-F-43

Ext.A3 series -  Registered lawyer notice dated.25.08.2016 sent to the opposite party by

                        complainant’s counsel and acknowledgment card received from the

                        opposite party

Ext.A4  -  Reply notice dated.06.09.2016 sent to the complainant’s counsel by the 

               opposite party’s counsel

Ext.A5  -  RC book of the Hero Glamour Motor Cycle bearing registration number KL-49-

               D-8977

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Nil.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1     -  Sreejith.V

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1    -  Benny Mathew

Cost

            Nil ,