DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 18^th day of  August, 2023.

Present    : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

                : Vidya.A, Member

               : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member               Date of filing: 31/03/2021                                 

     CC/64/2021

Ranjith K.M,

S/o Krishnan Naboodiri,

Kumaram Pulakkal Mana,

Pallipuram Post,

Pattambi – 679 305

Palakkad Dt.                                                                    -            Complainant.

(By Adv.K. Dhananjayan )

V/s

Ajith Kumar,

S/o Kuttappan,

Proprietor, ‘ Fifty Two Motoring’

Modifiation and Restoring,

Kollatha Valappil House,

Koottanad (P.O),

Palakkad Dist -679 533.                                                   -         Opposite party 

(By Adv. Aswathy.R)

O R D E R

By  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member.

1. Pleadings of the Complainant.

The complainant handed over his Ambassador Car to the opposite party for repainting and other related works on 10/01/2020. The amount quoted for the work was Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.30,000/- was given as advance on the same day. The opposite party had agreed to complete the work and handover the vehicle in the 1^st week of March 2020.  The complainant paid another Rs.15,000/- on 10/03/2020. Due to covid lockdown, there was no progress of work during March to June, 2020 and hence the work was completed only in June, 2020.

        On 12^th June 2020 the OP demanded Rs.1,88,700/- as the repair charges in the place of Rs.1,10,000/- agreed earlier. After deducting the discount of Rs.13,700/- and the advance amount of Rs.45,000/- paid by the complainant, the opposite party demanded Rs.1,30,000/- for returning the vehicle. According to the complainant, he is liable to pay Rs.65,000/- only as per the original quote of Rs.1,10,000/-. The complainant filed a case with Chalissery Police Station on the matter. The S I after enquiry and investigation opined that the case is of civil nature and referred the case by filing final report.

          Hence this complaint is filed seeking orders for returning the vehicle and declaring that the opposite party is not to entitled to get the additional amount of Rs.65,000/- and a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and cost Rs.25,000/-.

2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. He entered appearance and filed his version. His contentions  are.

1. He is not the owner of the Work shop, only an employee.
2. No commitment was given to the complainant that the work would be completed for Rs.1,10,000/- as claimed by the complainant.

3. In the meantime as agreed between parties, (as per the orders in IA-127/21)  the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on payment of Rs.65,000/- being the undisputed amount to the opposite party.

4.   The following issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the complainant and opposite party.

1. Whether the complaint is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties ?
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, what would be the cost of repair of the car ?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?
4. Whether the complaint is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
5. Reliefs and cost.

5. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 as evidence, which is a photocopy of the bill for Rs.1,88,700/- on a white paper. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.B1 to B3 as evidence. B1 is the copy of the bill for Rs.1,88,000/-. B2 is a series of whats app correspondence between the complainant and OP, and B3 is the final report in FIR, 386/20  submitted by Sub Inspector of Chalissery Police Station.

Issue 1

6. The main contention in the version filed by the opposite party is that he  is not the Owner/Proprietor of the opposite party firm where the complainant had given the car for repair. But he has not given the name of his employer, an honourable conduct, yet self-defeating.  Yet he has filed a detailed version in favour of the owner. Thus we are unable to accept this pleading. We are resorting to the presumption that the person named in the cause title is the owner.

Issue 2

7. The main point          of dispute is the cost of the works done by the OP on the car of the complainant. Though the complainant claim that the OP agreed to complete the work for Rs.1,10,000/- there is no evidence to prove that. After completing the work, the opposite party have given a bill in ‘kutcha’ form                    for Rs.1,88,000/-. In the case of dispute on the amount, only an expert on the subject can certify the real cost involved in the repair work done. The complainant did not take any steps in this direction. Hence we are not in a position to comment whether the amount demanded by the OP is exorbitant or not.

Issue 3

8. The opposite party has the right to retain the vehicle for  amounts due to him from the complainant as the OP is entitled to exercise his rights as a bailer as contemplated under Section 170 of Indian Contract Act. 

Issue 4 & 5    

9. The main contention of the complaint is that the charges claimed by the OP is exorbitant and above the amount quoted at the time of entrusting the work. The marked documents are insufficient to prove a prima case against the opposite party. No efforts were made by the complainant to arrive at the actual cost of the work done by the opposite party. No steps are taken to even cross examine the opposite party in the matter. Hence we have to reach

   a conclusion that deficiency in service on the part of OP is not proved with concrete evidence.

Issue 6

10.    As a prima facie case is not proved  against the opposite party, the complaint is dismissed.

 Pronounced in the open court on this the 18th day August, 2023.

                                                                                                  Sd/-          

                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                          President 

                                        Sd/-

                                                                                      Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                               Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the complainant :

Ext. A1: Photocopy of the bill for Rs.1,88,700/-

Documents marked from the side of Opposite party :

Ext. B1: Copy of the bill for Rs.1,88,000/-.

Ext. B2: series of whats app correspondence between the complainant and OP

Ext. B3: final report in FIR, 386/20  submitted by Sub Inspector of Chalissery  

             Police Station.

Cost :Nil.

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.  

Forwarded/By Order,    

  Assistant Registrar

Fair copy on    :  23/08/2023

Despatched on: