BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 29^th January 2016          

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.: 300/2015  

Complainant/s:                       Vishwanath B. Gidanadi,

Age: Major, Occ: Govt. Servant,    R/o. Near NWKRTC Industrial Training Centre, Gokul Road, Hubballi.

(By Sri.B.L.Tirakanagoudar, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:                         The Manager, Shantesha Honda Service Centre, Shiva Avenue, Gokul Road, Hubballi.

(By Sri.D.D.Tigadi, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.6,000/- towards the cost of the carborator with interest @15% P.A. from the date of claim, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony, to pay cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is the owner of the Honda Unicorn motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 26 Q 0646. On 13.10.2015 at about 10.30 PM the complainant left the motorcycle with the respondent to clean the petrol tank and carburetor. While leaving the vehicle for service the mechanic of the respondent inspected the vehicle and taken the possession of the vehicle. While delivering the vehicle for service all the parts of the vehicle was in good condition. After left the vehicle for service the officials of the respondent contacted the complainant through phone & told, carburetor idling screw had been broken & new carorator has to be replaced. But at the time of delivery it was in good condition. The same was broken by the respondents while handling due to their negligence. Thereafter the complainant requested the manager of the respondent to replace the carburetor, the manager demanded for payment of Rs.6,000/- towards replacement of new carburetor. Even though the same was broken at the negligence of the respondent’s workers during the time of service. On 15.10.2015 the complainant got issued legal notice requesting to replace the broken idling screw but, despite service of the notice the respondents not bothered either to reply or to comply which amounts to a deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments contending that the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and filed with malafide intention to harass the respondent with an ulterior motive to make wrongful gain by blackmailing respondent and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further the respondent contended that intentionally the complainant has mentioned wrong address of the respondent and approached the Forum with unclean hands suppressing the real facts. Further denied at the time of delivery of the vehicle the mechanics have verified and took the vehicle for service and also denied the facts, at the time of delivery the vehicle was in good condition & also denied the workers of the respondent at the time of service have broken the idling screw due to mishandling. Further the respondent contended that at the time of delivery of vehicle for service job card was prepared and for which the complainant signed and at the time of preparation of job card it was told to the complainant that unless and until parts are opened for cleaning the defects cannot be ascertained and if any parts are damaged then the same to be replaced for which the complainant had agreed. Daily many numbers of vehicles came to the service station for service, repair works will be taken first come first basis. Accordingly complainant’s vehicle was taken and when the carburetor was opened for cleaning the respondent noticed that carburetor screw was not there. So, it was immediately reported to the complainant and informed the cost. Instead of replacement the complainant started to blame the staff and picked up quarrel threatening that he will approach the court. The respondent further reveals the facts that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 28.07.2010 from Om Sai Motors, Gadag. After purchase for 1^st service the complainant took the vehicle for service at Gadag showroom on 27.08.2010 at that time it was necessary to change oil but the complainant did not changed oil telling that he is employee of KSRTC he will get change the oil at their depot. Even on 2^nd and 3^rd service on 27.10.2010, 22.12.2010 & 25.02.2011 also the complainant did not get oil changed saying that he has changed the oil at their depot. Even on 02.03.2011 and 06.04.2011 also the complainant did not get oil changed, only got washing and body polish. Thereafter the complainant came for present service. During that time the respondent noticed the carburetor idling screw was broken it might be due to as complainant might have tried to tight the carburetor idlying screw during that time it might be broken. Suppressing the same complainant left the vehicle with the respondent for cleaning the petrol tank & carburetor and blamed the respondent saying that screw has been damaged. The complainant has not availed mandatory free service for the first year of purchase. So, warranty automatically lapses. So also the complainant not done paid services also. Hence there are possibilities of damages to the engine and gear box. The complainant has not attended any free service or paid service in 4 years from the date he purchased the vehicle and also it was handled by someone other unauthorized garage & due to it, it might have broken as those persons were not known to handle the carburetor. So also carburetor screw will be fall if any damages or crack happen to the carburetor otherwise idling screw will not fall. The vehicle will run without adjustment of screw but RPM will decrease and less possibility of stoppage of engine stopping. In such circumstances respondent would not have informed the complainant that the screw has been broken if at all it was damaged by the respondents employee. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Defects in the carburetor had occurred at the instance of complainant himself. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint stating that the complainant filed the instant complaint to have wrongful gain at the hands of the respondent.

4.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

  Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit. Both have relied on documents. Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Affirmatively 
2. Accordingly  
3. As per order

R E A S O N S

P O I N T S 1 & 2

5.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact,  the complainant had left the vehicle with the respondent for service.

6.     Now the question to be determined is, whether the carburetor idlying screw had broken  by the respondent due to mishandling at the time of service and non replacing the same amounts to a deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.

7.     Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.

8.     On perusal of the pleadings of the respondent it is evident that as per the own admission of respondent the respondent is maintaining the job card. It is the mandatory and usual practice while leaving the vehicle for service by the customer the respondent has to prepare job card and note the defects and also have to note what are the repair works to be attended and what will be the cost of the repair. Accordingly the same is mentioned in the job card Ex.R-11. In it except mentioning charges Rs.350/- there is no mentioning of either fallen of screw nor broken.

9.     The case of the complainant is that the complainant approached the respondent for service i.e. for cleaning of fuel tank and carburetor. When the complainant specifically approached the respondent for those service at least the respondent should have prepared job card and inspected the carburetor and position of the tank, but not done. After left of the complainant from the premises of the respondent, respondent informed the complainant that carburetor idling screw has been broken and it will costs Rs.6000/- for replacement. But the complainant denies the same and contended it is broken by the workers of the respondent while attending the service. Hence respondent has to replace it free of cost. In the absence pre service inspection & entries of defects and cost of the service in the job card prior to attend the service in front of customers is amount to a deficiency in service by the respondent. As rightly admitted by both the parties defects have been brought to the notice of complainant subsequent to complainant left the vehicle but complainant denies it was broken earlier to leaving the same for service. For not taken precautions by the respondent while attending  the service for the said consequences respondent himself has to be held liable.  In the present complaint the respondent has taken dual contentions, on one stretch he tells idlying screw was fallen. And in other stretch he tells it was broken. Hence respondent himself is uncertain and taken dual contention. Hence the respondent workers only have broken it while attending it. Thereby the complainant has established his case of deficiency in service against the respondent.

10.   Apart  from above contention the respondent also taken contention that the complainant has not attended the service and got serviced the same in the prescribed intervals as per service manual and there is no warranty. It has to be noted here that the complainant is not claiming the damages under warranty but he is claiming the damages for broken the idling screw due to mishandling by the workers of the respondent during the service. Hence irrespective of warranty the respondent is liable to make good of the loss. Hence complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed.

11.  In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmatively & accordingly.

12.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

O R D E R

        Complaint is allowed in part. The respondent is directed to replace the carburetor/ idling screw at free of cost and to deliver the vehicle in good running condition along with Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same within stipulated period the respondent shall pay Rs.100/- per each day of delay. The complainant shall approach the respondent immediately after order & deliver the vehicle for replacement & to obtain the acknowledgement from the respondent.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 29^th day of January 2016)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR