BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 27^th day of July 2018

                                                                                       Filed on : 13.10.2017

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                           President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                          Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                               Member.

                        CC.No.408/2017

                              Between   

                                       O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

1.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant Sri. V. A. Hashim had entrusted his vehicle No.KL-36C 5891 with the opposite party- Concorde Motors India Ltd on 23.08.2017 for repair.  The vehicle had a brake down on 23.08.2017. The repair charge of Rs.24,009/- was paid by the complainant and the vehicle was taken delivery on 21.09.2017.  The case of the complainant is that even after repair made by the opposite party, the vehicle stops abruptly at the time of changing the gear.  Therefore the vehicle was again entrusted with the opposite party for repairing the vehicle and the opposite party informed the complainant that after running for some kms the above defects will be cured automatically. But even after running the vehicle for kms the above defects persisted and the vehicle was again entrusted with the opposite party on 09.10.2017 for repair and the opposite party demanded further amount of Rs.15,000/- to make good the vehicle and to rectify its defects.  The complainant is not ready to pay the above amount demanded by the opposite party over and above the amount of Rs.24,009/- paid by the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed claiming refund of Rs. 24,000/- along with the daily income earned by the complainant totaling to Rs.49,000/- towards compensation for the monetary loss suffered by the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

2)      Notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party filed their version in response to the notice received by them.

3)      Version of the opposite party

The complainant has no case that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party is unnecessarily made a party to the complainant. It is also contended that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was brought to the opposite party when it had a brake down due to breakage timing belt. It was also noticed that the fuel pump was also malfunctioning. The complainant was informed that it will cost Rs.24,000/- for the replacement of the timing belt and Rs.15,000/- for the replacement of the fuel pump.  The timing belt alone was replaced.  An amount of Rs.24,609/- was demanded by the opposite party towards the cost of the timing belt and the complainant paid the said amount  without any demur and with full satisfaction.  The allegation of the complainant is that there was difficulty in driving the car is without any basis or merit.  It is also submitted that the fuel pump was not replaced for want of sanction from the complainant. It is submitted that there has no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for this complaint.  The opposite party therefore sought for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)      Evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence adduced by the complainant which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A3.  No oral evidence adduced  by the complainant. The opposite party has neither adduced any oral evidence nor filed any documentary evidence.

5)      Issues came up for considerations are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice happened on the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs.24,000/- from the opposite party towards monetary loss, if any, suffered by the complainant?
3. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay the costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

6)      Issue No. (i)

          Exbt.A3 is the brake down service report from TVS Automobile solutions dated 23.08.2017 which shows that the disputed vehicle of the complainant had a brake down and the same was entrusted to the opposite party for repairing. Exbt.A2 Tax invoice dated 21.09.2017 issued by the opposite party shows that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.24,609/- towards repair charge of the vehicle. Exbt.A1 receipt issued by the opposite party shows that the opposite party had received an amount of Rs.15,009/- from the complainant on 21.09.2017.

7)      The complainant alleged in his complaint that the vehicle had brake down on 23.08.2017 and hence he entrusted the vehicle with the opposite party for repairing.  The opposite party delivered the vehicle on 21.09.2017 after curing the defects.  Even after repair made by the opposite party the vehicle stops abruptly at the time of changing the gear.  Therefore the vehicle was again entrusted with the opposite party for curing the above defect of the vehicle and the opposite party informed the complainant that after running for some kilometers the above defects will be cured automatically. But even after running the vehicle for kms the above defects persisted and the vehicle was again entrusted with the opposite party on 09.10.2017 for repair and the opposite party demanded a further amount of Rs.15,000/- to make the vehicle in good condition.

8)      In this case, the complainant did not adduce any oral evidence but produced Exbt.A1 to A3 documents.  On going through the Exbt.A1 to A3 documents we could not find any defects in the disputed vehicle as alleged by the complainant in his complaint.  As per the Exbt.A1 to A3 evidences, the complainant had entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party on 23.08.2017 and the opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 21.09.2017 after curing the defect.  The opposite party issued a receipt for an amount of Rs.24,608/- to the complainant towards repairing charges.  Thereafter no evidence that the vehicle has suffered defects and the complainant again entrusted the same to the opposite party and there by the opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant.  In the absence of the substantial evidence, we could not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party. In that case we are of the opinion that the complainant’s case is not believable, moreover the complainant has miserably failed to take any expert opinion or report before this Forum to prove his case.

9)      In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case with substantial evidences. Thus the 1^st issue is decided against the complainant.

10)    Issue No. (ii) and (iii)

Having found the issue No. (i) against the complainant, we are not inclined to consider and decide Issue Nos.  (ii) and (iii).

In the result, we find that this complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly this complaint is dismissed.

         Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of July 2018.

                                                          Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

                                                          Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

                                                          Sd/-Beenakumari V.K., Member

                                                                    Forwarded by Order

                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Appendix

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:          Nil

Date of Despatch ::

          By Hand     ::

          By Post       ::