IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C. No. 202/2011 (Filed on 04.10.2011)
Between:
Monachan, aged 42 years,
Jose Bhavan,
Kaipuzha Muri, Kulanada-
Village, Kozhencherry Taluk,
Pin – 689 503.
(By Adv. Varghese. P. Mathew) … Complainant.
And:
Sri. Vinod,
King Car Service Centre,
Njettoor Muri,
Kulanada Village,
Pin – 689 503. … Opposite party.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows: The complainant is a taxi driver by profession and he is having a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. KL-4M/2070. The said vehicle was entrusted to opposite party for repairing and painting during November 2010. Thereafter the opposite party collected ` 70,000 in all from the complainant without giving receipts as repairing charges. But so far the opposite party had not returned the said vehicle after its repairing and painting. Now the vehicle is lying in the open air of the opposite party’s premises. The income from the said vehicle is the only source of the complainant’s livelihood. Further the vehicle had a finance with Shriram Transport Finance Company and the monthly instaments to be paid is ` 6,173. Since the vehicle is not running, the complainant is not in a position to remit the monthly instalments of the loan and hence he is in receipt of a notice on 30.07.2011 from the finance company for the remittance of the dues and he had paid ` 10,000 to the finance company on 10.08.2011. The average monthly income from the said vehicle is ` 12,000 and it is lost from November 2010 onwards due to the aforesaid act of the opposite party. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. A notice demanding the return of the vehicle along with compensation is also issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Though the said notice was received by the opposite party on 23.08.2011, he had not responded to that notice. Hence this complaint for the realization of an amount of `1,08,000, the income loss, along with the loan arrears of ` 55,557 and the future loss of the complainant, with cost from the opposite party. Apart from the above demands, the complainant also prays for allowing him to realize an amount of ` 4,50,000 from the opposite party incase the vehicle in question is totally damaged due to the negligence of the opposite party.
3. In this case, opposite party is exparte.
4. On the basis of the allegation of the complainant, the only point to be decided is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of the complainant as PW1 based on his proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A6 and C1 to C4 series. After closure of evidence, the complainant was heard.
6. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party is running a workshop and the complainant had entrusted his Tata Sumo vehicle to the opposite party for its repairs and painting in the month of November 2009. But so far the vehicle was not returned to the complainant after its repairs and painting in spite of the complainant’s request and demand for the same. The opposite party had also collected an amount of ` 70,000 from the complainant for the repairs and painting. Now the vehicle is lying in the open air of the opposite party’s premises which caused extensive damages to the vehicle due to rain and sunlight. The income from the said vehicle is the only source of income of the complainant. The average monthly income of the vehicle is ` 12,000. The vehicle is also having finance and the monthly instalment of the finance is ` 6,170. Due to the non-return of the vehicle by the opposite party, the complainant is not getting any income and the monthly instalment of the loan is also not remitted from November 2009 onwards. The finance company had also issued notice for recovering the instalment dues. The complainant also caused a legal notice to the opposite party on 19.08.2011 demanding damages which was also accepted by the opposite party. But the opposite party has not complied with the demands in the Advocate Notice. The above said act of the opposite party put the complainant to irreparable injury and sufferings and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for his deficiency in service.
7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit along with 6 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext. A1 is the repayment schedule of the complainant’s vehicle loan issued by the financier. Ext. A2 is the demand notice dated 30.07.2011 issued by the financier for the recovery of the loan instalment dues. Ext. A3 is the cash receipt dated 10.08.2011 for ` 10,000 issued by the financier in the name of the complainant. Ext. A4 is the photocopy of the legal notice dated 19.08.2011 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. A5 is the postal receipt of Ext.A4 and Ext. A6 is the postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A4. Apart from the above exhibits, the report, mahazar and the photographs of the vehicle prepared by the Commissioners appointed by this Forum for ascertaining the present condition of the vehicle were also marked as Exts. C1 to C4 series through PW1. Ext. C1 is the report dated 01.12.2011 filed by the Advocate Commissioner. Ext. C2 is the mahazar dated 12.10.2011 prepared and submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Ext. C3 is the expert report and assessment report prepared and submitted by the Expert Commissioner. Ext. C4 series (15 in number) are the photographs of the vehicle lying in the workshop of the opposite party taken by the Commissioners.
8. The oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 along with Exts.A1 to A6 and C1 to C4 series shows that the complainants’ vehicle is lying in the open air of the opposite party’s premises as isolated with a semi dismantled condition which shows that the opposite party had neglected the complainant’s vehicle leaving it without conducting any repairing works. On the basis of the available materials on record and since the opposite party is exparte, the complainant’s allegations against the opposite party stands proved as unchallenged. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and hence this complaint is allowable.
9. In the result, this complaint is allowed with modifications thereby the opposite party is directed to complete the works of the vehicle and return it within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order along with compensation of `50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and cost of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to return the excess amount collected from the complainant, if any, in the name of repairing and painting charges than the amount assessed by the Commissioner as per Ext. C3. In the event of non-compliance of this order by the opposite party, the complainant is allowed to realize an amount of ` 2,00,000 (Rupees Two lakhs only) from the opposite party with 10% interest per annum from today till the whole realization and in that event the complainant is allowed to take back his vehicle and its entire spare parts holding by the opposite party as described in Exts.C2 and C3 reports.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 3rd day of January, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Monachan.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Repayment schedule of the complainant’s vehicle loan issued by
Shriram Transport Finance Company.
A2 : Demand notice dated 30.07.2011 issued by Shriram Transport
Finance Company.
A3 : Cash receipt dated 10.08.2011 for Rs. 10,000 issued by Shriram
Transport Finance Company in the name of the complainant.
A4 : Photocopy of the legal notice dated 19.08.2011 issued by the
complainant to the opposite party.
A5 : Postal receipt of Ext.A4.
A6 : Postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A4.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Court Exhibits:
C1 : Report dated 01.12.2011 filed by the Advocate Commissioner.
C2 : Mahazar dated 12.10.2011 prepared by the Advocate
Commissioner.
C3 : Expert report and assessment report prepared and submitted by
the Expert Commissioner.
C4 series : Photographs (15 in number) of the vehicle taken by the
Commissioners.
(By Order)
(Sd)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Monachan, Jose Bhavan, Kaipuzha Muri, Kulanada Village,
Kozhencherry Taluk, Pin – 689 503.
(2) Sri. Vinod, King Car Service Centre, Njettoor Muri,
Kulanada Village, Pin – 689 503.
(3) The Stock File.
