IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 66/2013 (Filed on 01.06.2013)
Between:
Jenish George,
S/o. George Thomas,
Madathil, Aneesh Bhavan,
Ala Village,
Chengannoor Taluk. ….. Complainant
And:
1. Tijo Thomas George,
Tapz Body Shop,
Chirayirambu,
Near YMCA, Maramon,
Kozhencherry.
2. George Thomas,
-do. –do.
(By Adv. Muhammed Ansari) ….. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant is the owner of a Tata Indigo Car bearing Reg.No.KA.03-C/4804. The complainant entrusted his car to the opposite party on 11.01.2013 for painting with an understanding to return the car within 35 days after painting for Rs.38,000/-. But opposite party get the car at his workshop for 113 days without completing the work. The complainant’s father visited opposite parties 30 times, after one month from the entrustment of the car for which he had paid Rs.15,000/- as taxi charges for his travel. The complainant is working at Bangalore and he had taken leave on 01.04.2013 and came to the workshop of the opposite parties and his said visit continued for 18 days for which he had spent Rs. 18,000/- because of his leave from his duties and he had further lost an amount of Rs.75,000/- being his salary and other incomes from his profession. Opposite parties had collected an amount of Rs.28,000/- as advance from the agreed amount of Rs.38,000/-. Thereafter the complainant’s father met the opposite parties with the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- for taking back the car as the works has been completed. But opposite parties demanded an amount of Rs.78,000/- as their charges as against the agreed amount of Rs.38,000/-. An altercation occurred in connection with the opposite parties demand for Rs.78,000/- and opposite parties and their employees insulted the complainant and his father when they questioned about the exorbitant amount demanded by the opposite parties. Opposite parties are not issuing any proper bills to their customers and thereby they are cheating the government also. The advertisements of the opposite parties are usually seen in the internet and other social community sites and the customers approaches opposite parties on the basis of the advertisement are also cheated by the opposite parties. Aggrieved in the actions of the opposite parties, complainants filed a complaint before the Koipuram Police Station against the opposite parties. But the complainant’s grievances are not redressed due to the influence of the opposite parties and due to the hostile attitude of police. Opposite parties also tried to compel the complainants for selling their car to them. So many vehicles are also seen in their workshop purchased by them in this manner. Due to the adamant stand of the opposite parties, complainants are compelled to pay the amount demanded by the opposite parties and taken back their vehicle apprehending the damages in case the vehicle is retained there without settling the disputes. On enquiry, complainants realized that opposite parties are following the above said unscrupulous practice in their business towards the customers who approached them. The delay in returning the vehicle and the exorbitant charges collected by the opposite parties put the complainants to financial loss and mental agony in different ways and the above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and they are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of a total amount of Rs.6,45,000/- from the opposite parties under various heads.
3. Opposite parties filed version and contended inter alia as follows:- Opposite parties admitted the work of the complainant’s car but they denied all the allegations raised by the complainant. Opposite parties never assured to complete the works within 35 days for Rs.38,000/-. The number of days and the amount required for the works will usually intimated after thorough examination of the complaints of the vehicle. There is no agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. The allegation that the work of the complainant’s car was ignored and other works were done is false. The work of the complainant’s car was not only for the painting and hence the allegation that the car was kept for 113 days for painting alone is false. The allegation that the complainant’s father visited 30 times and he had spent Rs.15,000/- for taxi charges is false. Opposite parties are not aware about the employment and the leave of the complainant and the allegation that he had visited the 18 days and spent Rs.18,000/- for his visits, and the losses if any to the complainant in this regard is unbelievable. The allegation that an amount of Rs.28,000/- was received on 11.01.2013 as advance is false and the complainant had given Rs.13,000/- on 25.01.2013 and another Rs.15,000/- on 04.04.2013. The detailed bill was given after the completion of the work and out of the total bill amount a discount of Rs.3,000/- was allowed by the opposite parties on the basis of the bargaining of the complainant and on 01.05.2013 the complainant settled the account by paying the balance amount of Rs.47,000/- and took back the vehicle without raising any objections. The allegations that opposite parties are in the habit of purchasing the vehicles after its repairs is false. The allegations that opposite parties are cheating the government by not issuing proper bills for their work is false and such type of allegations cannot be raised before this Forum and the said allegations are defamatory to the opposite parties. It is true that a complaint was filed against the opposite parties by the complainant before Koipuram Police Station. But that complaint was dismissed by the police as baseless as the police officers are convinced of the real facts. Opposite parties never made any offer for purchasing the complainant’s car. The approximate time required for the repairs and the approximate cost of repairs are intimated to the complainant when he had brought the car for repairs. The time and the amount was told to the complainant as 2 ½ months and Rs.60,000/- and it was told on the basis of the preliminary inspection. But on the detailed inspection the estimate was increased and the same was also accepted by the complainant and the work were carried out and completed as per the directions of the complainant. The complainant had made some propaganda against the opposite parties through internet and other social medias like face book for which the opposite parties had filed complaints before the cyber cell of the police and the opposite parties are preparing to file a deformation case against the complainant for their defamatory propaganda against the opposite parties. Opposite parties had never committed any deficiency in service and the works carried out by them are perfect and the complainant had not sustained any loss or mental agony due to any of the acts of the opposite parties. The complainant’s car was in a highly deteriorated condition and even the colour could not be identified when it was brought to the workshop. Apart from painting, some body works were also required and it was also done as per the direction of the complainant. The works was started for painting the car with white paint. But when the said works were almost completed the complainant changed his mind and asked opposite parties to paint his car with black-mirror finish paint which also caused delay in completing the works. Though the car was given for painting the condition of the car was very poor which compelled opposite parties to repair and replace many body parts and the entire works were carried out with the consent of the complainant. Opposite parties started his workshop during 2012 February and because of the quality of the works his workshop is getting good appreciation from its customers and the opposite parties apprehension is that this baseless complaint is for tarnishing the reputation of the opposite parties with the help of some rivals in the field. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and this complaint is filed only for getting unlawful enrichment. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
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, DW1, interrogatories of the complainant and its answers of the opposite parties and Exts.A1, A2 and B1 to B6 series. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point:- The allegation of the complainant is that his car entrusted with the opposite parties for its painting work with an understanding for the completion works within 35 days for Rs.38,000/-. But it was returned after 113 days and opposite parties charged Rs.75,000/- from the complainant. The delay in returning the car after its painting caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant which is a clear deficiency in service of the opposite party and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same and hence the complainant prays for allowing an amount of Rs.6,45,000/- under various heads from the opposite parties.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and 2 documents are marked as Ext.A1 and A2 from the side of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the bill dated 27.04.2013 for Rs.78,000/- issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2 is an audio CD of a conversation between the complainant and the opposite party in this matter recorded by the complainant by using his mobile phone which is later transferred to a CD.
8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that there is no understanding between them for completing the painting works within 35 days for Rs.38,000/-. The condition of the car was very poor which compelled the opposite parties for doing some body works other than the painting and the colour change desired by the complainant in a later stage also caused the delay and increased repairing cost. What all works done by them are with the approval and the consent of the complainant. The complainant has not raised any objection regarding the works or regarding the bill at the time of taking back the car from the workshop of the opposite parties. So according to the opposite parties, this complaint is ill motivated and filed for illegal enrichment. Hence opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint as they have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
9. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, 2nd opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1 in chief and complainant himself started cross-examination. But this Forum feels some difficulties in recording the cross-examination, this Forum directed the complainant to file an interrogatory to be answered by the opposite party. Accordingly, the complainant filed an interrogatory and the opposite party filed his written answers to the interrogatories and the interrogatory and its answers are incorporated with the deposition of DW1 as part of the deposition of DW1. The documents produced by the opposite parties are marked as Exts.B1 to B6 series on the basis of the proof affidavit. Ext.B1 and B2 are the 2 workers books from January 2013 to March 2013 of the opposite party. Ext.B3 series are the photographs of the complainant’s car (30 in number) taken by the opposite party. Ext.B3(a) is the memory card of the said photographs and B3(b) is the bill dated 17.08.2013 issued by Ajantha Digital Studio, Pathanamthitta in the name of 2nd opposite party. Ext.B4 series (B4-B4(x) ) are the bills showing the price of parts and materials purchased by the opposite party for the complainant’s car. Ext.B5 is the copy of FIR No.693/13 registered by the Koipuram Police Station under Sec.118(d) of K.P.Act against the complainant and his father on the basis of the complaint of the 2nd opposite party. Ext.B6 (B6-B6(e) ) are the copies of e.mails between the complainant and opposite party from 26.02.2013 to 06.04.2013.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available evidence on record and found that the parties have no dispute regarding the works of the complainant’s car undertaken by the opposite party. The disputes is with regard to the delay in completing the works and the excess billing. According to the complainant, opposite parties delayed the works for 113 days instead of their assurance of 35 days and opposite parties charged Rs.75,000/- for the works instead of their assured repairing charges of Rs.38,000/-. The argument of the opposite parties is that they had not assured the number of days required and the amount required for the works. As the condition of the vehicle was poor which compelled the opposite parties to carry out certain body works other than the painting. The body works and the colour change from white to black are the causes of delay and the rate increase. Everything was done with the consent and direction of the complainant.
11. It is pertinent to note that, both parties has not adduced any cogent evidence to substantiate their contentions. The evidence of the complainant is his deposition and Ext.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by the opposite party. With Ext.A1 alone we cannot ascertain that the works done by the opposite party are necessary and required for the complainant’s car. The complainant has not adduced any other evidence to show that the works mentioned in Ext.A1 are unnecessary. Further, we have heard the conversation between the complainant and the opposite party recorded in Ext.A2 audio CD by using the computer system of this office. The speech of the complainant is clear whereas the speech of opposite party is not clear. So we are constrained to discard Ext.A2. Moreover, the complainant has not adduced any evidence supporting his claim for Rs.6,45,000/-, though he had claimed the said claim under various heads.
12. At the same time, opposite party also failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their contentions. Ext.B1, B2, B4 and B6 are not sufficient to establish the contention of opposite parties that the works done are necessary and required and it was carried out with the consent of the complainant. Further, as per Ext.B3(b) receipt of Ajantha Digital Studio, Pathanamthitta and B3(a) photographs are taken on 17.08.2013. But as per the evidence, the car was taken back by the complainant by the 1st week of May 2013. If that be so how can that photographs been accepted as an evidence for showing the poor condition of the car when it was brought to the workshop. Thus in all respects the complainant as well as the opposite party failed to substantiate their contentions and allegations.
13. However we cannot say that the complainant’s grievances are baseless at the outset. At the same time we cannot say that the works done by the opposite parties can be completed within 35 days for Rs. 38,000/-.
14. Hence and from the facts and circumstances of this case, we feels that some delay and some excess billing has been occurred in this case and it was so happened due to the negligence of the complainant which is the cause of the dispute between the parties. Such a dispute was occurred due to the absence of an agreement in black and white and it was due to the negligence of both parties. If there was a written agreement, a dispute like this would not have been occurred. Therefore both parties are liable and responsible to each other and both of them has to sacrifice to an extent. So we are not allowing the complaint as prayed by the complainant and we are not dismissing the complaint as prayed by the opposite party. Considering the circumstances of this case and considering the draw backs of the evidence adduced by the parties we are disposing this complaint directing the opposite parties to return a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the said amount along with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount. In the nature and circumstances of this case no orders for compensation and cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 10th day of October, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Jenish George
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Bill dated 27.04.2013 for Rs.78,000/- issued by the opposite party
in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Audio CD of a conversation between the complainant and
the opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : George Thomas
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 and B2 : 2 workers books from January 2013 to March 2013.
B3 series : Photographs of the complainant’s car (30 in number).
B3(a) : Memory card of the said photographs.
B3(b) : Bill dated 17.08.2013 issued by Ajantha Digital Studio,
Pathanamthitta in the name of 2nd opposite party.
B4 series (B4-B4(x) ) : Bills showing the purchase of parts and materials
purchased by the opposite party.
B5 : Copy of FIR No.693/13 registered by the Koipuram Police Station. B6 (B6-B6(e) ) : Copies of e.mails between the complainant and
opposite party from 26.02.2013 to 06.04.2013.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Jenish George, Madathil, Aneesh Bhavan, Ala Village,
Chengannoor Taluk.
(2) Tijo Thomas George, Tapz Body Shop, Chirayirambu,
Near YMCA, Maramon, Kozhencherry.
(3) George Thomas, -do. –do.
(4) The Stock File.
