IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 15th day of May, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 03/2013 (Filed on 08.01.2013)
Between:
Shaji,
Pavoor House,
Manchalloor Muri,
Pathanapuram Village,
Kollam District. … Complainant.
(By Adv. Saran. D. Panicker)
And:
The Proprietor,
Merry Land Motors,
Merry Land Building,
M.C. Road, Adoor. … Opposite party.
(By Adv. Kichu. I. Kavanal)
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
The complainant approached this Forum for getting a relief against the opposite party.
2. The complainant’s case is that he is the owner of Ambassador Car bearing registration No. KL-02N/6955 and the opposite party is the authorized service centre of Ambassador Cars. The complainant entrusted his car to the opposite party for patch work. The complainant also provided all materials required for the patch work as suggested by the mechanic of the opposite party. After completion of the work, opposite party issued a bill which was paid by the complainant. Thereafter on an examination of the opposite party’s bill, complainant found serious irregularities therein. The irregularities noted are, though the opposite party charged Rs. 2,750/- under the head ‘running board full setting’ and Rs. 3,500/- under the head of ‘rear LH wheel inner and outer change and Rs. 3,750/- under the head of ‘dickey steppiny cover full change, he further charged Rs. 5,300/- under the head ‘welding charge’. According to the complainant, the charges levied under various heads mentioned herein above includes welding charge and hence opposite party is not entitled to charge welding charge separately. So the amount charged by the opposite party for the work is exorbitant and it does not tally with the services provided by the opposite party. The above said act of the opposite party is an unfair trade practice which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. A registered notice was also sent to the opposite party in this regard. Instead of settling the complainant claim, opposite party sent a reply notice suppressing the material facts. Hence this complaint for the realization of the excess welding charge of Rs. 5,300/- along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-.
3. Opposite party filed his version with the following main contentions: Opposite party totally denied the allegations of the complainant. According to the opposite party, welding charge and setting charge are different and hence opposite party is entitled to charge welding charge and fitting/setting charge separately. The work was started after preparing the job card and after obtaining the signature of the complainant in the job card. The works required for the complainant’s car was mentioned in the job card along with its approximate charges. The complainant never raised any objection regarding the works noted in the job card and the charges noted in the job card at any point of time. Further he had also not raised any objection at the time of the payment also. What all works done and the amount collected from the complainant are normal and the opposite party has not charged any exorbitant bill or he has not committed any unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party and he is not entitled to get any of the relief sought for in the complaint. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 and Exts. B1 and B2 series. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party charged exorbitant amount for the patch work done to the complainant’s car by the opposite party. Separate charges were billed for each work. Apart from the said charges, opposite party billed an additional charge of Rs. 5,300/- for welding. The charges levied for each work is inclusive of welding charges. So the opposite party is not entitled to charge any amount for welding charges. Separate welding charge collected by the opposite party is illegal and is an unfair trade practice and the opposite party is liable to return the welding charge.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A7. Ext. A1 is the cash bill No. 3372 dated 10.03.2012 for Rs. 17,605/- issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext. A2 is an estimate dated 29.02.2012 for Rs. 3,410/- issued from Popular Automobiles, Adoor. Ext. A3 is the office copy of the Advocate Notice dated 27.03.2012 issued for the complainant in the name of the opposite party. Exts. A4 and A5 are the postal receipt and acknowledgment card of Ext. A3 Advocate Notice. Ext. A6 is the reply notice dated 21.04.2012 issued for the opposite party in reply to Ext. A3 notice. Ext. A7 is the Owner’s Manual of Ambassador Car.
8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that he had not collected any exorbitant amount from the complainant and all the works done to the complainant’s car and the billing was made on the basis of the job card prepared by the mechanic of the opposite party in the presence of the complainant and after obtaining the signature of the complainant in the said job card. Welding charges and fitting/setting charges are different, setting charges are levied for the labour used for setting and fitting of the parts and welding charge is levied for the welding done for the said fittings. Fitting charge is not inclusive of welding charge. It is the usual practice and hence the bill in question is not illegal and the opposite party is entitled to the bill amount. The complainant has not raised any objection at the time of preparing the job sheet or at the time of signing the job sheet or at the time of making the payments as per the bill issued by the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party argued that the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint as the opposite party has not committed any unfair trade practice or any illegal act.
9. In order to prove the case of the opposite party, the opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, opposite party was examined as DW1 and the documents produced by him were marked as Exts. B1 and B2 series. Ext. B1 is the job card No. 923 dated 29.02.2012 of the opposite party in respect of the repairing works of the complainant’s car. Ext. B2 is the copy of the reply notice which is already marked as Ext.A6. Exts. B2(a) and B2(b) are the postal receipt and acknowledgment card of Ext. B2.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the repairing of the car. The only dispute is with regard to the bill amount. According to the complainant, the welding charge of Rs. 5,300/- included in Ext. A1 bill is illegal as setting charges included in Ext. A1 bill is inclusive of the welding charges and hence the opposite party is not entitled to charge any amount separately as welding charges. According to the opposite party, setting charges included in Ext. A1 bill is for the works done for the setting of the parts and the welding charge included in Ext. A1 is the charges for the welding works done for the setting works and all the works and the charges for the said works are recorded in Ext. B1 job sheet and all the works were done after obtaining the signature of the complainant in the job card. Further, the opposite party contended that the complainant never raised any objection at the time of preparing Ext. B1 job card or at the time of payment of Ext. A1 bill.
11. On a perusal of Ext. B1 job card, it is seen that the complainant had put his signature in it. Though the complainant raised a contention that the said signature is not put by the complainant, he failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate the above contention. Moreover, on a comparison of the signature of the complainant seen in Ext. B1 with his signatures seen in other documents such as the complaint, vakalath etc., we cannot agree with the above contention as all the signatures are more or less similar. So we are inclined to accept the genuineness of Ext. B1 job card. Moreover, the complainant’s allegation that the setting charge is inclusive of welding charge is not proved with any cogent or independent evidence. Mere allegation alone is not sufficient for establishing a case. In the absence of any supporting evidence in favour of complainant’s allegations, and in the circumstances of our findings that Ext. B1 is a strong evidence against the complainant, we are not inclined to accept the allegations of the complainant. Therefore, we find that the opposite party has not committed any unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. Hence this complaint is found not allowable and is liable to be dismissed.
12. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 15th day of May, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Shaji. C.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Cash bill No. 3372 dated 10.03.2012 for Rs. 17,605/-
issued by the opposite party in the name of the
complainant.
A2 : Estimate dated 29.02.2012 for Rs. 3,410/- issued from
Popular Automobiles, Adoor.
A3 : Office copy of the Advocate Notice dated 27.03.2012
issued for the complainant in the name of the opposite
party.
A4&A5: Postal receipt and acknowledgment card of Ext. A3
Advocate Notice.
A6 : Reply notice dated 21.04.2012 issued for the opposite
party in reply to Ext. A3 notice.
A7 : Owner’s Manual of Ambassador Car.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : Rajan Mathew.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Job card No. 923 dated 29.02.2012 of the opposite party
in respect of the repairing works of the complainant’s car.
B2 : Reply notice dated 21.04.2012 issued for the opposite
party in reply to Ext. A3 notice.
B2(a) and B2(b) : Postal receipt and acknowledgment card of
Ext. B2.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Shaji, Pavoor House, Manchalloor Muri,
Pathanapuram Village, Kollam District. (2) The Proprietor, Merry Land Motors,
Merry Land Building, M.C. Road, Adoor.
(3) The Stock File.
