DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of JANUARY 2019
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R, President
: Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member Date of Filing: 03/05/2018
CC No.61/18
C.Raghavankutty,
S/o.E.Raghavan Nair,
Rajadeepam,
Kottappadamkalam, - Complainant
Kollengode.P.O,
PIN - 678 506.
(By Person only)
V/s
Proprietor
Grand Motors,
P.M.G. Building,
Near Punjab National Bank,
Chittur, PIN– 678 101.- Opposite party
(By Advs.John John and A. Chenthamarakshan)
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R, President.
Brief facts of complaint:
Complainant submitted that his Bajaj Boxer Bike having Registration No.KL-9-H-4938 had a problem of oil leakage. For curing this defect he had entrusted his Bike with the opposite party on two times. First time opposite party informed that there was a crack in the bottom of engine. By covering the crank case crack with M-seal opposite party charged Rs.1,544/- from the complainant. Even after repair bike had same problem of oil leak. Again he approached the opposite party for the same and opposite party again charged Rs.767/- for repair of the same. Even then the problem of the oil leakage was not cured. Complainant submitted that after collecting repair charges from the complainant opposite party did not repair his bike properly. The above acts of opposite party amount to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite party either to repay the amount collected from the complainant or to repair the bike perfectly and also direct opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of proceedings.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite party. After receiving the notice opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version contending the following:-
Opposite party admitted that complainant had brought the motor bike for the maintenance and repair of the same with a specific complaint of oil leak. It was a 2000 year model bike which had covered 1,09,740 Kms. requiring whole check and maintenance. The oil leak was the result of a small crack on the casting and the complainant was informed at the first instance that the same can be safely cured by welding the casing after dismantling the engine and resetting the same. When the complainant was informed that the repair charge of the same itself will come around Rs.10,000/-, he opted for the ad-hoc arrangement of M-Seal pasting for the time being. No amount was charged for the same. This opposite party charged only Rs.600/- towards the labour charges. The remaining portion of the total bill of Rs.1,544/- was the cost of the parts, statutory tax and water service. When the complainant approached second time, the leak was seen through the drain bolt only. The bolt was seen put in place with cotton threads, which was the proof-method is to engrave fresh threading by lathe work. It was done collecting a meager amount of Rs.600/- towards the labour charge. The rest of the amount of the total bill of Rs.767/- was for lathe work and tax. This opposite party had done the work in the best possible manner and very meager service charges were collected from the complainant. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle in full satisfaction of the work done thus far and there was no complaint from his part till filing of the complaint, after 41 days. Status report on or about the date of complaint is also not produced by the complainant. No deficiency of service occurred and no unfair trade practice was adopted by this opposite party in dealing with the matter. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents. Documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A9. Opposite party also filed chief affidavit. As per order in IA/206/18 an expert commissioner was appointed and after examining the vehicle commissioner filed detailed report which was marked as Ext.C1. Evidence was closed and matter was heard.
The following issues that arise for consideration are.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- If so what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 & 2
Opposite Party admitted that complainant had brought the motor bike for the maintenance and repair of the same with a specific complaint of oil leak for which they charged 1st and second time Rs.600/- each towards the labour charges. The remaining portion of the total bills were charged for the cost of the parts, statutory tax, lathe works and water service. It is an admitted fact that even after repair the complainant could not use his vehicle properly. In the commission report commissioner stated that at the first inspection he found the presence of engine oil at the bottom of the engine crank case and side stand. He opined that covering the crank case crack with M-seal is not a correct method to rectify the defect of oil leaking. The proper method is welding or replacement of the respective part. From this it is revealed that the technician of the opposite party has no knowledge about the defect of the vehicle and the method to be adopted for the curing the defect. They covered the crank case crack with M-seal. As per the opinion of expert it is a wrong method. In the version opposite party submitted that the oil leakage can be safely cured by welding the casing after dismantling the engine and resetting the same for which Rs.10,000/- is needed. No evidence is adduced to prove this. Under the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.
In the result complaint is partly allowed. We direct opposite party to pay Rs.1,200/-(Rupees One thousand two hundred only) towards the amount collected as labour charges, Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only) towards mental agony suffered and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as cost of proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of January 2019.
Sd/- Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Job Card No.25467.
Ext.A2 - Tax Invoice No.GICH/718/1718 dated 13.03.2018 given by the Opposite party.
Ext.A3 - Tax Invoice No.GIKO/1285/1718 dated 22.03.2018 given by the Opposite party.
Ext.A4 – Vat Invoice No.SICH/844/1617 dated 22.02.2017 given by the Opposite party.
Ext.A5 – Photograph of the bike.
Ext.A6 – Photocopy of the driving license of the complainant.
Ext.A7 – Photocopy of the Certificate of Registration of vehicle No.KL-09-H-4938 issued by
Motor Vehicles Department.
Ext.A8 – Photocopy of Certificate of Insurance issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Commission Report
Ext.C1- Technical Commissioner’s Report dated 25.6.2018.
Cost : Rs.1,000/
