D.O.F:04/10/2016
D.O.O:10/10/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.253/2016
Dated this, the 10th day of October 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Mohammed Musthaq A.H
S/o Abdul Rahiman
Guddekkeri, Hosbettu Post
Manjeshwara Taluk, Kasaragod Dist. : Complainant
(Adv: Suresh.K.P)
And
The Managing Director
Zain Motors, Zain Arcade
Near Chendragiri Bridge, Kasaragod Post : Opposite Party
Kasaragod Taluk & Dist
(Adv: Babuchandran.K)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended )
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant is the owner of the Bajaj RC 390 bearing No - KL 14 6 -9164. The Vehicle was purchase from opposite party for a price of Rs.2,75, 000/- with a loan of Rs.1,86, 000/-from the Bajaj Finance Ltd. The vehicle was delivered on 04.11.2015 by the Opposite Party and the first service was on 09.012.2015. The 2nd service was on 29.12.2015 and after service, the complainant took the vehicle and when he was proceeding towards his house, the engine of the vehicle suddenly stopped at a place near Bandiyod. The matter was informed to the opposite party, who sent a mechanic to the site, when the mechanic namely, Shanu started to repair the bike, the vehicle got fired. Immediately fire force came and extinguished the fire. By that time the bike was totally damaged due to fire. The Opposite Party took the available part of the bike to their showroom. The bike is got fired due to the negligence of the Opposite Party .The bike was having starting trouble due to the poor service of the opposite party. Even after the stoppage of the engine the opposite party sent an inexperienced mechanic and when he was repairing the bike the vehicle got fired. It was due to the negligent service of the opposite party, the complainant lost the bike. The opposite party offered the complainant a new bike of the same model free of cost but they failed to keep the word. The complainant was using the bike for eking out his lively hood, by working as a bill collector of a cool drinks company. Due to service deficiency of the opposite party the complainant suffers great mental agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint is filed for an order directing the opposite party to deliver a new bike or else pay the cost of Rs.3,00,000/-with interest along with Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and cost.
The opposite party entered appearance through their counsel who filed written Version.
As per the version of the Opposite Party, the complaint is false frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Opposite Party admit that that the complainant is the owner of the Bajaj RC 390 bearing No - KL 14 6 -9164. The Vehicle was purchase from opposite party for a price of Rs.2,75, 000/- with a loan of Rs.1,86, 000/-from the Bajaj Finance Ltd. The vehicle was delivered on 04.11.2015 by the Opposite Party and the first service was on 09.012.2015. But the opposite party denied all other contentions in the complaint, which are prejudicial to their interests. The Opposite party submitted that the complainant entrusted the said bike for 1st service on 09.12.2015, and during that period the bike already covered more than 10,000 kms. The opposite party warned the complaint and requested not to ride the vehicle excessively. When the vehicle was brought for the 2nd service it was noticed that the bike was covered more than 20,000 kms. The above bike covered an average distance of 370 kms per day. There after the complainant on 30.12.2015 contacted the opposite party and told that the bike got damaged due to fire. Then the opposite party told him to bring the bike to showroom and accordingly, the complainant brought the bike and it was seen that the bike totally got damaged due to fire and it was not repairable. The bike was got damaged not at the time of repairing the same by the mechanic of the opposite party. The complainant claimed compensation for the total loss of the vehicle from the insurance company and the insurance company already allowed his claim and he collected the amount from the insurance company.
There is no service deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed in the complaint. The complaint is devoid of any merit and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents
Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 3 are marked .The Ext - A1 is the copy of RC book . Ext - A 2 series are photos of the bike, Ext. A3 is the Report dated 15-02-2017 of the Fire Force, Uppala. The complainant was cross examined as PW1. The Opposite party examined 3 witnesses as Dw1,Dw2, and 3. The Dw1 is Mr. Mohammed Shain Shan , who was the service manager of the Opposite Party. The Dw2 is Sajith.P , the divisional manager , the New India Assurance Co.Ltd Kasaragod. The Dw3 is Mr. Hareesh C.O, the Asst.Manager (legal),Bajaj Finance Ltd., Calicut. The documents Ext B1 and Ext B2 and Ext X1 marked from the side of the opposite party. Ext B1 is the copy of the cheque No.576140 dated 23.05.2016for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by the New India Insurance Company Ltd. Ext B2 is the a copy of statement of account pertaining to the vehicle loan of the complainant. Ext.X1 is the entire file related to the insurance claim of the complainant.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration:
1. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that his bike is got fired due to the negligence of the opposite party .The bike was having starting trouble due to the poor service of the opposite party. Even after the stoppage of the engine the opposite party sent an inexperienced mechanic and when he was repairing the bike the vehicle got fired. It was due to the negligent service of the opposite party, the complainant lost the bike. The opposite party offered the complainant a new bike of the same model free of cost but they failed to keep the word. The complainant was using the bike for eking out his lively hood, by working as a bill collector of a cool drinks company. Due to service deficiency of the opposite party the complainant suffers great mental agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint is filed for an order directing the opposite party to deliver a new bike or else pay the cost of Rs.3,00,000/-with interest along with Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and cost.
The opposite party argue that the bike was got damaged not at the time of repairing the same by the mechanic of the opposite party. The complainant claimed compensation for the total loss of the vehicle from the insurance company and the insurance company already allowed his claim and he collected the amount from the insurance company. Here the complainant states that the 2nd service was on 29.12.2015 and after service, the complainant took the vehicle and when he was proceeding towards his house, the engine of the vehicle suddenly stopped at a place near Bandiyod. The matter was informed to the opposite party, who sent a mechanic to the site, when the mechanic, namely, Shanu started to repair the bike, the vehicle got fired. Immediately fire force came and extinguished the fire. By that time the bike was totally damaged due to fire. The complainant produced the Ext A3 document, the Fire force report which shows that the Bike got fired on 29.012.2015 at about 6 pm. No reason for the fire is mentioned in the Ext.A3.
The Opposite party submitted that the complainant entrusted the said bike for 1st service on 09.12.2015, and during that period the bike already covered more than 10,000 kms. The opposite party warned the complaint and requested not to ride the vehicle excessively. When the vehicle was brought for the 2nd service it was noticed that the bike was covered more than 20,000 kms. The above bike covered an average distance of 370 kms per day. There after the complainant on 30.12.2015 contacted the opposite party and told that the bike got damaged due to fire. Then the opposite party told him to bring the bike to showroom and accordingly, the complainant brought the bike and it was seen that the bike totally got damaged due to fire and it was not repairable.
Here the complainant did not produced any document to show the bike was serviced on 29.12.2015. That would have been a better piece of evidence to establish that the vehicle got fired immediately after the service. There is no evidence to connect the opposite party with the damage of the vehicle due to fire. There is no expert evidence in this case, so as to know the actual cause of the fire, which damaged the vehicle. Therefore considering circumstances and in the absence of reliable evidence, this commission is not inclined to hold that there is any service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.
More over the documents Ext B1, B2 and Ext. X1 would collectively prove that the loss of the bike has been compensated by the insurance company.
ln the result , the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Copy of R.C book
A2- Series Photos of the bike
A3- Fire Report by the Fire Force Uppala
B1- Copy of the cheque
B2- Statement of account
X1- series
Witness Examined
Pw1- Muhammed Mustq A.H
Dw1- Mohammed Shain Shan
Dw2-Sajith.P
Dw3- Hareesh.C.O
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
