BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.183/2008

Between

Complainant : Mathew Thoamas aged 45

Velliyamkulath House,

Mamkulam Kara, Mamkulam.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Party : Proprietor,

Pappanasseril Automobiles Workshop,

Opposite Government High School,

NH Road, Adimaly.

(By Adv: P.C. Johney)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant is the owner cum driver of a jeep bearing Reg. No. KL 6A 6062 which uses as taxi. The only livelihood of the complainant is the earnings from the jeep. The complainant was plying the jeep on contract with the KSEB. The complainant entrusted the jeep to the opposite party on 14/04/2008 for reparing the same. The opposite party agreed to complete the work within 15 days. On 10/06/2008 the opposite party called the complainant and asked the complainant to engage somebody else for the painting work and the complainant entrusted one Mr.Gopi for painting on 27/06/2008. Mr. Gopi completed the work and returned the vehicle. Complainant made payment for the painting work. On 28/06/2008, opposite party returned vehicle and issued a bill of Rs.21,760/-, the complainant paid the amount. On a close scrutiny of the bill the complainant came to understand that the amount charged by the opposite party, for the repair of 1/2 body work was for 50 labours. Usually it takes 35 labours and the opposite party charged Rs.6,750/- as excess from the complainant. In the bill, item Nos. 5 and 6 are the same Job and charged total Rs.8,80/-. So the opposite party charged Rs.4,00/- as excess. Item No. 12 of the bill, electric welding Rs.21/- is paid and the usual charge is Rs.15/- only. Rs.4,20/- is excess. It is seen that the bill for so many items are very high. So the petition is filed for getting back the excess amount paid by the complainant and also against deficiency in service.
 

2. The opposite party filed written version and admitted that the opposite party repaired the vehicle of the complainant. The charge paid by the complainant was existing in the locality and which was agreed before starting the work. Usually Rs.4,00/- per day is the wages for a patch worker in Automobile workshops at Adimali. But the opposite party charged only Rs.3,50/- for the said jeep. The opposite party received only Rs.11,200/- as patch work labour charge. By the third week of April 2008, the complainant came to the workshop in a motor bike and made enquirees regarding the possible and probable expenses for the patch works and repairs of a jeep. After 2-3 days, the complainant again came with a full rusted, ruined jeep without any number plate, styling himself as the driver of the Manager, Mankulam Hydroelectic Project, Mankulam. The complainant wrote down in a pocket diary of him, the probable expenses that may incurrer. After the repair, when patch works started, the complainant did not call to make payments of the wages and the expenses promptly. When the work was completed, Rs.7,000/- was due and the complainant tried to take away the vehicle without paying it, to which the opposite party was not amenable. After some hours, the complainant came with the balance amount, but insisted that Rs.1,000/- should be paid to him as "padi for the driver", to which also the opposite party was not amenable. After obtaining a detailed bill for the amount, the complainant took away the vehicle. After sometime he came again with a buyer of old iron and waste things, to take away the wastes of jeep kept in the corners of the workshop. Usually drivers or owners of the repaired vehicles will not take away the rusted useless waste iron parts and hence this opposite party told the complainant to leave them. But the complainant sold it for Rs.7,00/- and removed it. On that score, there occurred hot arguments in between the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant left the workshop with threaten that he would do revenge against the opposite party. So the complainant became enimical with the opposite party and this complaint is filed only because of the enimity with the opposite party.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced from the part of opposite party.

5. The POINT:- The complaint is filed for getting the excess amount paid by the complainant for repair of the vehicle. Complainant was examined as PW1. The work order of the Electriciy Board given to the complainant is marked as Ext.P1 and bill for the repair is marked as Ext.P2. PW1 deposed that the opposite party agreed to repair the vehicle within 15 days for an amount of Rs.15,000/-. But a written agreement was not given to the complainant. A mediator talk was done with the opposite party when the bill was became hike. But the talk was not success. PW2 is the President of the union of Automobile work shops of Adimali unit. PW2 deposed that a complaint was received from the complainant about the bill given by the opposite party and also the half body work of the jeep. The work will take 25 to 30 labours. But in this case 50 labour charges were charged against the complainant. The plate and spin were changed, both were one and the same. The bill was written for seperately. The body fitting charge is Rs.7,50/- in ordinary course, but it is written as 2,205/-. A mediator talk was conducted by PW2 with the complainant and the opposite party and proposed to reduce the bill given by the opposite party. But the opposite party did not reduce the same. As per Ext.P2 bill, it is seen that, patch work labour charge is written as 32 labour charge and per day costs Rs.3,50/-, Rs.11,300/- is the total charge for patch work. As per the complainant, the patch work labour charge bill was given for 50 labours. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the half body work charges, welding charges and grinding charges are doubled in the bill. But it is seen from Ext.P2, it is charged Rs.2,500/- as body fitting charges. As per Ext.P2, griding charge is Rs.300/- welding charge is written as 1,700/- which is Rs.20/- per welding rod, cost Rs.85/- each. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the opposite party is not aware of the 50 labour charges stated by the complainant. The patch work of the jeep is not as same as changing of a tyre. It could not be predict how much cost before starting the work. The metal or the iron waste of the vehicle are not usually taking by any of the owners or any of the drivers of the vehicle. As per the complaint there was a delay of 25 days and it caused loss of Rs.12,200/- to the complainant. But the opposite party argued that the delay was caused because of the increase of work in the vehicle, not because of any laches from the part of opposite party. Perusing Ext.P2 documents, it is seen that the electricity charges shall vary from day to day and Rs.20/- is charged for welding per piece. It is an amicable charge and not a hike one. Perusing Ext.P2 documents and the version of the complainant, are not corroborating with the items in the bill and also PW2 is an upholstery worker and not an expert in the patch work of the automobile. As per opposite party the government or automobile workshop association never made any Circular regarding the charges of automobile repairing. There is no written agreement between the complainant and the opposite party about the work of the jeep. So we think that there is no deficiency is seen in the part of the opposite party. The patch work and repairing of jeep will vary with the defect or decay of the platform or body of the automobile.

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the petitioner.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2009.

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Mathew Thomas

PW2 - Roy K.G.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Work Order of Electricity Board given to the complainant dated 28/12/2007.

Ext.P2 - Repair Bill dated 28/06/2008 for Rs.21,760/-.

Ext.P3 - Copy of complaint dated 01/07/2008.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil