THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.417/2010

Dated this the 17^th day of December,  2014.

          ( Present:  Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB.                    :  President)             

                        Smt. Beena Joseph, M.A                        : Member

ORDER

By Beena Joseph, Member:

            The petition was filed on 16/10/2010.  The gist of the complaint is that  he had entrusted his swift car with third opposite party in order to repairing the defects, but they were not repaired vehicle in time and charged exorbitant rate and falsely obtained Rs.5901/- from the petitioner towards spare parts which was not replaced. Hence this complaint.

            In the above matter, notice were issued to both parties they were appeared and filed version. Opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 filed version stating that the above vehicle was not having warranty. The warranty of the vehicle was over on 29/05/2008. there is no consumer relationship existing between the parties as per the act. And the third opposite party being the authorized service center of Maruthi, they cured the defects properly. Hence there was no service deficiency on opposite party 1 and opposite party 2. they demanded for a dismissal of the complaint. Third opposite party filed version stating that they repaired the vehicle properly to the satisfaction of the complainant. the allegation with respect to overcharging of bill Rs.5901/- disputed by them and explained that the delivery if the vehicle was on 07/09/2010 and 08/04/2010. they came to know about the excess charging of bill they themselves informed the complainant regard this error and returned Rs.6646/- to the complainant on 09/04/2010. and there was no service deficiency on their part. The delay  in delivery of vehicle caused only due to the non availability of spare parts and the vehicle’s electrical system was complaint which cannot be detect or rectify within a short time. It was properly intimated to the petitioner.

Points to be considered:

1. Is there any negligence or service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Is there any excess charging of bill by the opposite parties?
3. If yes, what are the relief to be awarded.

In the above matter the swift car was entrusted the opposite party for  repair but the job card issued by the opposite party not produced by the complainant, herein the job card will make it clear that what were the complaints of the above vehicle. Due to the absence of the same and there was no report of any competent authorities or mechanical or automobile engineers. This Forum cannot come into conclusion regarding the alleged complaints and period required to repair the same. In the circumstance, we are not inclined to say that there was deficiency of service on the part of 3^rd opposite party.

      Admittedly 3^rd opposite party is the agent of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party. The above vehicle which involved in this matter was not having any warranty at the time of repair. This aspect is not disputed by anybody. Allegation was with respect to the delay caused in delivery of the vehicle given the third opposite party.  Moreover, no specific allegations were put against 1^st and 2^nd opposite party herein. In such circumstances, we are not in a position to fasten any liability with 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.

In the above matter complainant has no grievances regarding the repair work done by the opposite party 3. The case was only regarding delay and charging excess bill for an amount of Rs.5901/- that without replacing the existing harness assembly engine. The above fact was seen admitted by third opposite party stating that it was a clerical mistake occurred on their part and they intimated the complainant regarding this aspect on the next day itself and corrected their mistake by returning Rs.6646/- to the complainant and the third opposite party produced Ext. B1 to prove their claim. Ext. B1 shows that one Moosakoya received the above amount refunded by the 3^rd opposite party. Complainant was examined as PW1 and herein produced 3 documents which were marked as A1 to A3.

In this matter it is proved that there was a excess charging of Rs.5901/- for a spare parts which was not repaired by the third opposite party. It was seen that the amount was refunded to the complainant’s father. Even then there is  negligence and latches on the part  of 3^rd opposite party, which has to be compensated  by the person concerned.

In the result, petition allowed in part. 3^rd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation to the complainant. Comply the order within one month from the date of Order  

Pronounced in the open court this the 17^th day of December 2014.

Date of filing:16/11/2010.

SD/- PRESIDENT                                                                                SD/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Lawyer notice sent to the opposite parties

A2. Job card retail card memo issued by the opposite party

A3. Job card retail card memo issued by the opposite party

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

 B1. Payment voucher dated 08/04/2010

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Moosakoya (Father of the complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None

                                                                                                                        Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT