By Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Opposite party to get cost and compensation for the deficiency of service .
2. Brief of the complaint:- The Complainant entrusted his vehicle to the Opposite party for repairing the starting complaint on 16.05.2013. The Opposite Party had repaired the vehicle and given back to the Complaint stating that the defects is rectified. For the siad repair the Opposite party charged Rs.2,225/- from the Complainant and bill also given, in the very next day itself the vehicle shown the same complaint and he again entrusted the vehicle to Opposite party on 17.05.2013 and Opposite party told that the Complaint is due to the adulteration in the petrol and suggested to remove all the existing 12 liters of petrol and cleaned and filled new petrol and Opposite party also replaced the spark plug and guaranteed that such Complainant will not occure hereafter.
3. Then on 20.05.2013 the Complainant and his family along with his friends family, in the above said vehicle and in one other vehicle started a tour program to Karnataka Tourrist Places. On the way to Karnataka when the Complainant and his team reached at Kutta the above vehicle shown the above mentioned complaint and Complainant intimated the same to the Opposite Party. Then Opposite Party suggested to bring the vehicle to Opposite Party's service center and it will be repaired. Then on non faith in the service of Opposite Party the Complainant intimated the matter to the authorised service centre of the vehicle ie APCO, Kakkavayal and they came and towed the vehicle to their workshop and they found out the actual complaint of this vehicle ie the complaint in the CKP censor which caused the starting trouble and they repaired the defects.
4. The complainant further submitted that due to the non curing the actual defects of the vehicle by the Opposite Party,. the Complainant caused much difficulty and broke down their tour program and all the team members troubled in the way and trapped in the halfway and they hired one taxi and proceed with the tour. Due to this the complainant and his team caused much difficulty and mental agony and financial losses and further stated that the non curing the actual defects of the vehicle is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, and prayed before the Forum to direct the Opposite party to pay the cost and compensation.
5. Notices were served to Opposite Party and Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version denying all the allegation and stated that the Complainant entrusted the vehicle to Opposite party on 16.05.2013 for periodical service and to repair the AC complaint. There upon the Opposite Party replaced the engine oil and oil filter and Break oil and the AC complaint also repaired and given back, at that time the complainant not intimated any complaint about starting trouble. The very next day also the Complainant entrusted the vehicle to Opposite party for complaint of less pulling. After examination of the vehicle the Opposite Party found the Complaint that “due to the non use of the vehicle every day the octain count or number of petrol is reduced and so Opposite party advised to replace the petrol and thereby replaced about 11 liters of petrol and the replaced petrol is taken back by the Complainant and for rectifying the founded further complaint the spark plug 7 YC LNG PLTNM also changed and after taking somany trials in the road and after giving the changed petrol charge and service charge with full satisfaction the Complainant taken back the vehicle.
6. On 20.05.2013 the Complainant called the Opposite party from Kutta and intimated that the vehicle is not starting. So the Opposite party reached at Kutta with all tools and a crain, and that time already the Complainant engaged APCO HUNDAI work shop people to repair the vehicle and Complainant told that the APCO Hundai is the authorised work shop for this vehicle and he is decided to repair his vehicle in APCO work shop and Opposite Party's service not required here after. Then the APCO Mechanic examined the vehicle and traced out the Complaint in CKP Censer parts and after using the CKP censer from the Opposite Party's hand the vehicle get repaired and the vehicle started and defects of the vehicle cured and the Opposite Party further stated that the CKP Censor complaint can occur at any time and when the complainant entrusted the vehicle the Complainant not made any complaint regarding the starting complaint and it can be seen from the Job card and stated that they have not done any deficiency of service. Hence prayed before the Forum to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to this Opposite party.
7. Complainant filed Proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 marked and Opposite party filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and he is examined as OPW1 and Exts.B1 to B3 is marked . Ext.A1 is the Bill issued by the Opposite party to the Complainant dated 16.05.2013 which shows that the Complainant entrusted the vehicle for periodical service and Ext.B1 shows that it is also reported Air conditioner complaint. Ext.A2 is the Bill given by the Opposite party to the Complainant which shows that the very next day of first complaint itself the Complainant entrusted the vehicle to Opposite party for repair and Opposite Party replaced the spark plug which shows that the Complainant might have reported the starting complaint and after replacing the spark plug also the defects could not rectified. It is evidenced from the complaint and version it assumes that the Opposite Party firstly suspected the mistake in the petrol, so they removed the petrol and cleaned the petrol tank and filled the new petrol, thereafter may be due to non curing the
defects, the Opposite Party had changed the spark plug also.
8. Ext.A3 is the Bill issued to the Complainant by APCO Vehicles (India) Pvt Ltd., Kakkavayal which coupled with complaint and version shows that due to the same complaint on 20.05.2013, the vehicle is repaired by APCO exactly. Ext.A4 is the Bill issued by One Sakya Gust House Byrakuppe to the Complainant dated 21.05.2013 which shows that the Complainant took a room near Kutta and stayed there for one day and paid Rs.1,300/- as room rent. Ext.B1 is the Job Sheet. Ext.B2 is the same as Ext.A1. Ext.B3 is the same as Ext.A2.
9. On analysing the complaint, version, affidavit and documents we raised the following points as the main issues.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of Opposite party?
2. Relief and cost.
10. Point No.1:- On analysing the evidence it is found that the Opposite Party could not identity the actual complaint of the vehicle. On several occasions the Complainant entrusted the vehicle with Opposite party for repair of starting complaint. As per Ext.A2, the Opposite Party once changed the spark plug. As per Ext.A2 the Opposite Party changed the petrol also in order to cure the complaint. But Opposite party failed to identity the actual complaint. When the vehicle is given to APCO, they easily identified the complaint and stated that it is a complaint in CKP Censor and cured the complaint. So failure on the part of Opposite party to identity the actual complaint is a gross deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party which caused much mental agony and financial loss to the Complainant. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
11. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found against the Opposite Party. Opposite party is liable to pay the cost and compensation to the Complainant and the Complainant is entitled for the same. The point No.2 is found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only as compensation to the Complainant and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as cost of this proceedings to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default the Complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum for whole the amount from Opposite party.
Dictated to CA transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of November 2014.
Date of filing:06.06.2013.
RESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Karunakaran. A.K Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Satheesh Babu. Managing Partner, New Indian Bosch Car
Service, Sulthan Bathery.
Exhibit for the complainant:
A1. Retail Invoice. dt:16.05.2013.
A2. Cash Invoice. dt:23.05.2013.
A3. Cash Invoice. dt:23.05.2013.
A4. Cash Bill. dt:21.05.2013
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
B1. Estimate/ Job Card dt:16.05.2013.
B2. Copy of Retail Invoice. dt:16.05.2013.
B3. Copy of Retail Invoice. dt:17.05.2013.
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
M/
