BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 381/2005 Filed on 19.11.2005<br /> Dated : 30.05.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> M.T. Thomas, 26, M.G. Nagar, Peroorkada P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 005.<br /> Opposite party:<br /> The Managing Director, St. Antoney’s Automobiles Service Centre, Plot No. 46/B, Veli Industrial Estate, Tvpm-21.<br /> <br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 16.02.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 03.05.2008, the Forum on 30.05.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA: MEMBER<br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: The Cielo car owned by the complainant met with an accident on 08.09.2005 and the rear bumper of the car got damaged. The complainant entrusted the car with the opposite party who is the authorized dealer after informing United India Insurance Company as the car was insured by them. Accordingly their surveyor and loss assessor assessed the damage of the car on 12.09.2005 and 20.09.2005 and final report was sent on 23.09.2005. In the meantime the workshop replaced the rear bumper and issued bills for Rs. 18172/- and the complainant paid the entire amount. But the surveyor had assessed only an amount of Rs. 5,145/- towards cost of spare parts changed and labour charge. The opposite party has charged Rs. 13,000/- as cost of rear bumper whereas the surveyor has assessed only Rs. 5,650/-. Besides the opposite party has charged for certain parts supposed to have been replaced but actually not replaced. As there were many anomalies in the bills issued by the opposite party, the complainant requested the opposite party to refund the excess charged from the complainant. Since there was no positive response from the opposite party, this complaint has been enunciated for refund of the excess amount charged along with compensation and costs.<br /> Opposite party remains ex-parte. Complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P5 on the part of the complainant. <br /> <br /> The issues raised for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?<br /> <br /> Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant has alleged that his Cielo car which met with an accident at Pathanamthitta was entrusted with the opposite party for repairs and the opposite party had collected excess amount from him. The complainant has come to the conclusion that excess amount has been collected from him on the basis of the survey report, which has been marked as Ext. P3 prepared by G.P. Harikrishnan, Surveyor & Loss Assessor. The complainant alleges that the opposite party had issued him two bills and he has paid an amount of Rs. 18172/- as per it. But on a perusal of the bills, Ext. P5 is seen issued by the opposite party which is for an amount of Rs. 2500/- only, but Ext. P4 for an amount of Rs. 15672/- is seen issued by one Kelester Engineers. Though P4 is in the name of the complainant, nowhere it could be found from P4 that P4 has any relation with this opposite party. In Ext. P1 the letter written by the complainant to the opposite party, the complainant has mentioned that “United India Insurance Company have received your acknowledgement for receiving the amount of Rs. 18172/- by way of receipt No. 2061 dated 21.09.2005.” The complainant has not produced any evidence to prove the same. The opposite party has not appeared in this case. Even if the opposite party is ex-parte, the complainant will have to establish his case set out in the complaint by reliable and convincing evidence. The complaint is very vague and the complainant has not taken out an independent expert commissioner to prove the difference in price and for establishing that excess amount has been collected from him. The surveyor is also not examined. <br /> <br /> Under these circumstances we have to hold that the complaint is not supported by materials on record for holding that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has miserably failed to prove his complaint. <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th May 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD, <br /> President<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 381/2005<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> PW1 - M.T. Thomas<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - True copy of letter dated 08.10.2005 sent by complainant to the opposite party.<br /> P2 - True copy of estimate for accidental repairs dated 10.09.2005.<br /> P3 - True copy of survey report of policy No. 101400/31/05/05828 dated 23.09.2005. <br /> P4 - True copy of cash receipt dated 21.09.2005 – Sl.No. 314. <br /> P5 - True copy of labour bill dated 21.09.2005 for insurance claim.<br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />