D.O.F:29/07/2024     

                                                                                                  D.O.O:30/10/2024

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD

                                 CC.280/2024

Dated this, the 30^th   day of October 2024

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA. K.G                                      : MEMBER

Abdul Nasar,

S/o Abdul Rahman

Kadambala House, Neerchal,

P.O Bela                                                                     : Complainant       

                                                            And

Aman Motors Suzuki Service Centre,                         : Opposite Party

Cheruvathur, Kasaragod.

ORDER

SMT. BEENA. K.G  : MEMBER

     The facts of the case is that the complainant is the owner of a two wheeler Burgman street scooter having Registration No: KL 14- AD 8753.  The above said scooty is entrusted to Opposite party for service and claim insurance on 22/04/2024.  At the time of entrusting scooty for service, opposite party has not given job sheet instead offered to return the vehicle within one month.  But so far the vehicle is not returned after repair.  The complainant was working as a delivery boy.  Vehicle is highly essential for his daily field work.  Due to the service deficiency on the part of Opposite party due to return of the vehicle after repair, the complainant lost his job and undergone severe mental agony and hardship.  Moreover the vehicle had loan, the complainant is constrained to pay EMI regularly.  The complainant approached Opposite party ten times from 22/05/2024 to 29/07/2024 as per the directions of Opposite party, but the vehicle is not repaired and returned by Opposite party as per earlier offer.  In the last visit opposite party behaved in a rude manner to the complainant and told that they are not ready to return the vehicle and he can do anything to get the vehicle.  So the complainant is seeking direction against Opposite party to returned the vehicle repaired with a compensation of 1,20,000/-.  The complainant filed IA seeking direction against Opposite party to deliver the vehicle to the complainant at the earliest after repair.  As the prayer in IA and main complaint are one and the same we consider both prayers together.

          Notice of opposite party served, but remained absent.  Name called absent set exparte.

          The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination complainant is heard the main question raised for consideration are

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in repairing and delivering the vehicle.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief? If so what is the relief?

For convenience all the points can be discussed the together

Here the complainant entrusted his vehicle for repair with opposite party on 22/04/2024 .The opposite party offered to return the vehicle after repair within one month.   By entrusting the vehicle for service, the complainant sought service from opposite party for a consideration so he is a consumer as per CP act 2019.  But so far the vehicle not returned after repair.  The complainant is working as a delivery boy he cannot deliver the products in the absence of the vehicle due to the delay in delivering the vehicle he lost his job moreover the vehicle had loan and the complainant was constrained to pay EMIs of the loan and has to spend extra money for conveyance. The complainant approached opposite party to get return of the vehicle many times.  In the last occasion the opposite party behaved in a very rude manner to the complainant infront of other customers which caused severe mental agony to the complainant.The non returned of the vehicle after repair within one month as promised by opposite party is a severe deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  The scooty is in the possession of opposite party who is holding without any reason.  In the absence of rebuttal evidence the Opposite party is bound to compensate the loss and agony undergone by the complainant in monitory terms.  There is clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

          The complainant is seeking a direction against opposite party to return the vehicle repaired along with a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- for long delay the claim of the complainant is too high and not supported by any documentary evidence.  Hence we hold that return of the vehicle in a good condition with a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case. 

          Hence the complaint is partly allowed directing Opposite party to return the vehicle in good condition along with a compensation of      Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.

    Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

Ps/                                                                 Assistant Registrar