IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 16thday of March, 2023.
Filed on 20.08.2022
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt.P.RSholy, B.A.L, LLB (Member)
CC/No.210/2022
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.Vishnudas P Bright Auto Electricals
Machinkal Miranda Building
Mannancherry P.O. Near Vazhichery Bridge
Alappuzha-688538 Alappuzha-688001
(Party in person) (Adv.Vinoy Varghese)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
On 17.08.2022 while the complainant along with his family was travelling in motor cycle bearing registration No.KRK 9535 the bulb of the head light become defective. He went to the opposite party and the bulb was changed and they collected an amount of Rs.110/- being the price of the bulb and Rs.20/- as service charge. They issued a bill dated 17.08.22 for the amount. On 19.08.22 while complainant was riding the motor cycle the cover became loose and the head light was broken. Complainant approached the opposite party and informed the matter and requested to change the head light. However they denied the demand and hence the complaint is filed for giving a direction to the opposite party to change the headlight, compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.50,000/- as cost.
2. Opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act. It is true that complainant approached the opposite party for replacing the bulb of the headlight doom on 17.08.2022 for his vehicle bearing registration No.KRK 9535 Enfield diesel bullet motor cycle. At the time of replacing the bulb the head light doom was damaged due to rusting. The vehicle is of 1980 model. Opposite party advised to replace the said head light doom with a new one but the complainant requested to fix it. As per the request of the complainant the said head light doom was fixed in front of the complainant and his wife. The complainant was satisfied with the service provided by the opposite party and he remitted the bill amount.
3. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. This complaint is filed only to harass the opposite party. Complainant is not entitled for any relief and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
4. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party as alleged?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order to exchange the headlight as prayed for?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realise an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation from the opposite party as prayed for?
- Reliefs and costs?
5. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 from the side of the complainant. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.
6. Point Nos.1 to 3
PW1 is the complainant. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked A1.
7. PW1, the complainant is the owner of motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KRK.9535. On 17/8/2022 while he was riding the same along with his family,the head light was found not working. He got it repaired with the opposite party and an amount of Rs. 130/-was collected by them. Rs.110/- was the price of the bulb and Rs. 20/- was collected as labour charge. On 19/8/2022 while PW1 was riding the bike the head light got detached and it was broken. Though he went to the opposite party and demanded to replace the same or as to pay the price, they were not ready for the same. Hence the complaint is filed for giving a direction to replace the head light, claiming an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- as cost. Opposite party filed a version admitting that on 17/8/2022 they replaced the bulb. However since the vehicle was of 1980 model,the head light doom was damaged due to rust. Though opposite party requested complainant to replace the head light doom with a new one he was not ready for the same. They changed the bulb and the complainant was satisfied with their work. Hence there is no deficiency from their part. Complainant got examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary. Relying upon his evidence complainant who was appearing in person pointed out that it was due to the non fixing of the head light properly it fell down. Hence there was deficiency of service from the part of opposite party and so he is entitled for compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party filed an argument note denying the averments in the complaint and stating that they had only collected Rs. 20/- as service charge. Since PW1 became angry due to collection of service charge the complaint is filed with false allegations. It was also contended that complainant has not proved deficiency of service and so he is not entitled for compensation.
8. The fact that PW1 approached opposite party for changing the bulb of the head light is not in dispute. Ext.A1 is the bill dtd. 17/8/2022 issued by the opposite party by which they collected Rs. 110/- being the price of the bulb and Rs. 20/- as labour charge. (Total Rs. 130/-). On 17/8/2022 PW1 was satisfied with the work of opposite party. Now the allegation is that on 18/8/2022 while he was riding the bike the head light which was repaired by the opposite party became detached and fell down by which the glass was broken. According to PW1 since it was not properly fixed by the opposite party on 17/8/2022 it got detached. Per contra according to opposite party it was a 1980 model bullet motor cycle and the head light doom was rusted. Though opposite party requested to change the same PW1 was not willing for the same and hence they changed the bulb. Though opposite party filed a version denying the averments none of them entered into the witness box to prove their case on oath. As held by the Hon’ble Surpeme Court in AIR 1999 SC 1441(Vidhyadhar Vs Manikrao)
“WHERE a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.”
9. During cross examination it was put to PW1 that the glass was broken due to the age of the vehicle,which was denied by Pw1 and he stated that opposite party did not fix the screw after changing the bulb which resulted the breakage of glass. Admittedly opposite party collected an amount of Rs.110/- being the price of the bulb and Rs. 20/- as service charge. The evidence on record shows that on 17/8/2022 the bulb was changed by opposite party and on 19/8/2022 the head light portion got detached and the glass was broken. So the allegation of Pw1 that since opposite party did not fixed the same properly stands proved. Though opposite party contented that it got detached due to rust there is no evidence for the same except the allegation in the version and which was taken during cross examination of PW1. According to PW1 the screw was not fixed properly and it was the reason for detaching the head light portion. In said circumstances since deficiency from the part of opposite party was proved they can be directed to replace the glass of the head light which was broken.
10. Complainant is claiming an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of deficiency of service. Admittedly the vehicle was repaired by opposite party on 17/8/2022 and the breakage of glass occurred on 19/8/2022. Since the glass was broken PW1 was unable to use the vehicle. In said circumstances PW1 is entitled for compensation and we are limiting the same to Rs. 1000/-. These points are found accordingly.
11. Point No.4
In the result complaint is allowed in part.
a) Opposite party is directed to replace the broken glass of vehicle bearing Reg. No. KRK. 9535 belongs to PW1.
b) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 1000/- as compensation from the opposite party.
c) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 500/- as cost from the opposite party.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 16th day of March, 2023.
Sd/-Sri.S.SanthoshKumar(President)
Sd/-Smt.P.R.Sholy (Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sri.Vishnudas P (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Bill dtd. 17/8/2022
Evidence of the opposite parties: NIL
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Comp.by:
