D.O.F : 27/01/2023

                                                                                                       D.O.O : 23/05/2024

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.24/2023

      Dated this, the 23^rd day of May 2024

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                               : MEMBER

Jayesh Krishnan

Thayam Thottil House

Karinthalam P.O.

Kalichamaram, 671314.                                                                    : Complainant                                            

   And

Domenic (Muth)

Veluvadakkethil Veedu

Sneha Tyre Works

Kalikkadavu

Bheemanadi (PO)

Kasaragod, Kerala.                                                                           : Opposite Party

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER

            The complainant is the owner of an electric scooter bearing registration no. KL 79 A 2766.  On 19/2/2022, the complainant had entrusted the aforementioned scooter to opposite party for replacing the tyre. But opposite party informed that he don’t know the work of electric scooter, due to the insistence of complainant, the opposite party replaced the tyre with the advice of a bike repairer.  While replacing the tyre, opposite party hit the tyre with a hammer.  The motor of the scooter hit and got bent, neglecting the objections by the complainant.  As a result, the motor was broken.  As it is a physical damage, privilege of warranty will not avail to him when it is enquired with the company.  According to the complainant had spend Rs. 8,000/- to cure the present defect of the vehicle.  Now the motor is broken due to the deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant had undergone monitory loss and mental agony due to the illegal act of opposite party.  Hence, he is claiming a compensation of Rs. 18,000/- from opposite party. 

            The opposite party filed version admitting the replacement of the tyre of the complainant’s electric scooter on 19/12/2022.  But opposite party refused to attend the work as he is not attending the work of electric scooters.  The complainant approached opposite party at 7pm in the evening, so the complainant was not in a position to take the vehicle to the showroom, situates 40 kms away from the shop.  Due to the instigation of the complainant, the opposite party attended the work and the complainant returned home in the same scooty.  After 2 days of the aforementioned incident the complainant approached opposite party and informed that the motor of the vehicle is broken due to the hitting with hammer.

            The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination, and the pen drive produced by the complainant containing the conversation of complainant and opposite party was marked as MO1.  The questions raised for consideration are;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in replacing the tyre of electric scooty?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
3. If so, what is the relief?

All issues can be considered together.  The complainant approached opposite party to replace the tyre of electric scooter, the opposite party hesitate to attend the work as it is an electric scooty.  Considering the time and instigation of the complainant, opposite party replaced it with the help of a bike repairer.  But while doing so, he saw a bend in the motor and hitted it with a hammer.  After curing the defect, the complainant returned home in the same scooter.  But after 2 days, he came with the broken motor with complaint.  The complainant had produced a pen drive containing conversation between him and the opposite party.  This commission carefully gone through the affidavit and conversation between the complainant and opposite party.  The complainant himself stated in his complaint that opposite party denied to provide the service for the reason that he don’t know the work of electric scooter.  But due to the instigation of the complainant, opposite party was constrained to do the work.  Hence this commission is not attributing liability on opposite party.  The complainant claims that he suffered loss of Rs. 8,000/- and other loss of Rs. 18,000/- is also mentioned in the complaint and affidavit.  But he has not produced any evidence to prove his loss.  The complainant is failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

Hence the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.   

     Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Exhibits

MO1 – Pen drive

     Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

JJ/