D.o.F:22/03/2011
D.o.O:30/9/2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.72/11
Dated this, the 30th day of September 2011
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
V.Narayanan, S/o Kannan,
Mottammal House, Periya PO : Complainant
Pallikkerae Via.
( in person)
Zain Motors, Zain Arcade,
Near Chandragiri Bridge ,Kasaragod : Opposite party
(Adv.Babuchandran,Kasaragod)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle bearing RegNo.KL14/F 6529 since the vehicle showed some starting problems on 11/1/2011. Complainant entrusted the vehicle with opposite party the authorized Bajaj dealer on 12/1/2011 curing the defect and also for full checkup and gas tank clearing. The opposite party issued a job card dtd.12/1/11 and promised to return the same at next day. But opposite party failed to return the vehicle even after months. Hence the complainant could not run his vehicle and there by sustained loss and income. Hence the complaint.
2. Opposite party filed version. According to opposite party the complainant was directed to come on next day of entrustment to ascertain the defect of the vehicle and the service personal after inspection found that the gas kit of the vehicle is went out of order and it requires the replacement of the gas kit. Next day the opposite party asked the price of gas kit `18000/- but complainant demanded the replacement of gas kit free of cost to which opposite party disagreed. Opposite party contents that according to complainant the gas kit is covered by warrantee and therefore it had to be replaced free of cost. The complainant thereafter did not contact opposite party for a long time. Later he started to make telephone calls threatening to initiate legal proceedings. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves a dismissal.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit as PW1 in support of his claim. Exts.A1 to A6 marked through him. He faced cross examination by the counsel for opposite party.
4. In cross examination complainant deposed that the warranty of the vehicle was one year and he purchased the vehicle in 2006 April and he also deposed that he is a driver retired from KSRTC . He denied the suggestion that on the next day of entrustment of the vehicle opposite party asked him to replace the gas kit. PW1 further deposed that the entire gas kit was not defective and only some parts were defective. He denied that the service personals of the opposite parties are qualified.
5. In cross examination the learned counsel for the opposite party stated that the opposite party is ready to repair the vehicle provided half of the repair charges are met by him. To which the complainant submitted that the opposite party shall pay compensation for not plying the vehicle for 8 months. He denied the suggestion that he is liable for keeping the vehicle in the custody of the opposite party for 8 months.
6. During hearing complainant submitted that his vehicle was in perfect condition when it was entrusted with opposite party except a starting trouble. He stated that the vehicle has covered only 17000 Kms within 4 years and he alone is using the vehicle. This would prove that complainant is not wholly depending on the income derived out of plying the vehicle.
7. Complainant further stated that though opposite party is the authorized dealer and service centre of Bajaj LPG Autorikshaw, there are no qualified hands who are well versed with the repair of LPG kit attached autorikshaw and due to the ill-handling of the LPG kit by unqualified hands the defects are aggravated and that leads to the replacement of the entire LPG gas kit. According to him had there been qualified hands then the LPG Kit could have repaired by changing only the defective parts.
8. To controvert allegation that the service personals are unqualified hands no documents are produced by the opposite party showing the qualification of service personals in handling with LPG gas kit repairing .
9. It is a fact that now most of the service centers(including authorized service centre) are run by persons who are neither having professional training nor academic qualification. Most of them opt the said employment only because they could not find out any other employment and they get trained from their experience by lapse of time. The LPG versions of automobiles are comparatively recent to that service persons and most of them are yet to be experienced.
We are of the opinion that the complainant is happened to be one of the victim of such unqualified persons who instead of curing the defect make it more complicated causing dissatisfaction to the complainant. The proposal of the opposite party to repair the vehicle for half of the actual repair charges itself proves that there happened service lapse on their part. Normally no mechanic makes such an offer and no customers demand a free repair. The complainant is therefore entitled to the loss sustained to him due to the deficient service provided by opposite party.
However we fix the compensation to the limited extent of rectifying the defects of the vehicle free of costs.
In the result complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to rectifying the defects of the complainant’s vehicle free of costs. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.
Exts:
A1-Job card
A2 –Tax receipt
A3-Premium receipt insurance
A4-A4(a)- receipts
A5- copy of request made to airtel for list of calls
A6-copy of relevant page of users manual.
PW1- V.Narayanan- complainant
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
