K.Amrthesh,

S/o. K.Seetharama Acharya,

Badagannur Village & Post,

Puttur Taluk,

Dakshina Kannada. …….. COMPLAINANT



(Advocate: Sri.Lokesh M.J.)



VERSUS



Proprietor,

City Bajaj Auto Centre,

N.H.48, Talapady,

B.C. Road,

Dakshina Kannada. ..…. OPPOSITE PARTY

1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.

It is submitted that the Complainant is a registered owner of the bike bearing registration No.KA 19 S 1571. It is stated that the Complainant kept his bike for repair at Opposite Party garage on 4.12.2007 and the Opposite Party thoroughly checked the bike and prepared estimated bill dated 4.12.2007 for Rs.1,000/- and thereafter the Opposite Party promised to repair the bike within 2 weeks but the Opposite Party did not deliver the bike as promised inspite of repeated visits by the Complainant to the Opposite Party’s garage. Thereafter at last on 20.2.2008 the Opposite Party has repaired the bike and gave a fresh bill for Rs.3,894/-.

It is alleged that the Opposite Party has issued the above bill against its own estimation dated 4.12.2007 and alleged that the Opposite Party issued a excess bill and Opposite Party was duty bound to repair the bike as per the estimation dated 4.12.2007 and has deliberately increased the repair charges which amounts to deficiency of service and apart from the above the Opposite Party has taken two months for repair also caused inconvenience to the Complainant and hence the Complainant filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to refund Rs.2,874/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from 20.2.2008 and further Rs.15,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.



2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD.

Opposite Party despite of serving notice neither appeared nor contested the case till this date and hence proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party. The acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1.



3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?



(ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

(iii) What order?



4. In support of the complaint, Sri.Amruthesh K. (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and got marked Ex C1 to C7 as listed in the annexure.

We have considered the materials that was placed by the Complainant before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:

Point No.(i): Negative.

Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.


Reasons


5. Point No. (i) to (iii):

In the instant case, the Opposite Party despite of serving notice not appeared nor contested the case till this date but on the other hand the Complainant produced Ex.C1 to C7 in support of his case, wherein the Ex C1 is the estimate issued by the Opposite Party wherein the Opposite Party checked the vehicle of the Complainant and issued a estimated cost of Rs.1,000/-. And Ex C2 is the bill for Rs.2,530/- issued by the Opposite Party wherein he has charged Rs.2,530/- for 14 parts. In Ex C3 the Opposite Party has charged Rs.1,020/- for petrol, wash and changing of engine oil. In all Rs.3,750/- was received from the Complainant towards the repair of the vehicle in question. But we do not understand how the Complainant can come up with this type of complaint by stating that the estimate was issued for Rs.1,000/- and later charged Rs.3,750 etc. etc. The estimation is not the final bill.

The terms and condition of the estimate clearly reveals that the estimated cost and time make change owing to unavoidable circumstances so that the Complainant cannot stick upon to the estimate issued by the Opposite Party. Estimate is a estimate which is not the final bill hence the allegation of the Complainant in this case is baseless and the same is not proved by giving cogent evidence. Even though the Opposite Party is exparte the entire burden lies upon the Complainant to show that the repair carried out by the Opposite Party garage is baseless and he has deliberately increased the repair charges in order to cause loss to the Complainant but no evidence was placed by the Complainant hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.



6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.