IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 29th day of December, 2017
Filed on 22.09.2016
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.300/2016
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Haridas. P.K. 1. Hero Motors Corporation Ltd.
Ponnattu 34, Community Centre
Arthunkal P.O. Basant Lok, Vasant Bihar
Cherthala New Delhi
(By Adv. K.S. Arundas)
- East Venice Motors
Makkiyil Plaza
West of YMCA., Alappuzha
Pin – 688 001
(By Adv. Jayan. C. Das)
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows:-
The complainant on 23rd December, 2015 approached the 2nd opposite party to get the cylinder of his motor bike bearing No.4J 1592 repaired. The 2nd opposite party’s personnel impressed upon the complainant that replacing the cylinder alone wouldn’t suffice. According to him if the vehicle’s engine is not patched up he the defect of the vehicle would definitely recur. The complainant sought the charge for revamping vehicle’s engine, and he was told that the same would come up to Rs.10,000/-. However at that point of time the complainant was not in a position to invest that much amount, and the complainant approached the opposite parties on 27th January, 2016 to get the work of the engine done. The opposite parties issued to the complainant a job sheet demanding Rs.10,000/- for the said work. The opposite parties assured the complainant that the work would be completed on 29th January, 2016. Contrary to the said promise the complainant’s vehicle was delivered only on 30th February, 2016. When the complainant turned up for taking the delivery of his motor bike the complainant was issued a bill for an amount of Rs.16,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant was constrained pay off Rs.16,000/- in order to get the vehicle release. Thereafter in the evening the complainant noticed that instead of complainant’s ‘spender model’ the bill of the other ‘CD 100 model’ bearing the same registration number was issued to the complainant. On 4th February 2016, the complainant approached the opposite party, and demanded the original bill of the complainant’s vehicle. In the evening a new bill was issued in the name of the complainant’s vehicle, but the old job sheet number was replaced by a new one. The opposite parties fleeced excessive amount of Rs.6,000/- from the complainant. The complainant sustained humiliation and injury. The complainant on aggrieved on this approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notices being issued the opposite parties appeared and filed separate versions. The 1st opposite party contends that the 1st opposite party has unnecessarily been made a party in the complaint. The complainant’s contentions have nothing to do with any manufacturing defect of the vehicle. That apart there is no sort of allegations as service deficiency on the part of the 1st opposite party. The complaint lacks merit, and hence the same is to be dismissed with cost, the 1st opposite party vehemently contends. According to the 2nd opposite prty when the material vehicle was entrusted with them for repair, the amount stated to have specified in the job card is only an estimate of the proposed amount that might be arrived on competition of the work. The exact amount could be worked out only after the work is finished. Thus when the patch up work of the vehicle was completed the entire charge when computed came up to Rs.16,143/-. The complainant had paid off the aid amount and the vehicle was released in his favour. In the bill previously issued the model of the vehicle was stated as ‘CD 100’ by only a clerical mistake. The opposite party has not carried out any anomaly in the bill as alleged by the complainant. The service of the opposite party is not deficient. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the 2nd opposite party contends forcefully.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1, and documents Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, the Service Manager of the 2nd opposite party was examined as RW1 and the expert commissioner was examined as RW1.
4. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, the issues that crop up before us for consideration are:-
1) Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to relief?
5. Concededly the complainant has entrusted his vehicle to the 2nd opposite party for the purpose of revamping his vehicle. It is also not disputed that the 2nd opposite party issued a job card stating Rs.10,000/- as the repairing charge. After the vehicle being repaired, the opposite parties issued a bill demanding an amount of Rs.16,143/- from the complainant. The complainant paid off the bill and took delivery of the vehicle. In the evening, the complainant noticed that on the top of the bill the model of the vehicle was spelt out as ‘CD 100.’ The complainant thereafter approached the opposite party, and sought the original bill. Another bill was issued rectifying the mistake as to the model of the vehicle, but a new job card number was specified in the bill subsequently issued. The opposite party has ripped off Rs.6,000/- from the complainant. According to the opposite party, the error with respect to the model of the vehicle was only a clerical mistake. The amount put forth in the job card was only an approximate amount, and the exact amount could only be worked out in the event of the entire work is finished. Keeping in view the contentions raised by the parties, we carried out a cautious survey of the materials available before us. On a perusal of the complaint, versions, testimonies and other documents, it does appear that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was approximated by the opposite parties. Thereafter when the complainant turned up for taking delivery of his vehicle a bill demanding an amount of Rs.16,143/- was issued. The said bill was paid off. As per the opposite party, the mistake regarding the model of the vehicle was an inadvertent clerical error. To us also it does seem that similar type of mistake is not so uncommon in like bills, and hence cannot be considered as farfetched. That apart it is also not a matter unknown that the amount usually projects in the job card is the exact, accurate charge for the work proposed to be done. Notwithstanding all these aspects, the difference between the amount projected in the job card and the amount the complainant had to pay later cannot be viewed a so common a phenomenon. In the light of this aspect, when the variance as to the job card numbers in two different bills are being looked into it is worthy of notice that the opposite parties have not offered any satisfactory explanation as to the said point. Above all the opposite party was seemingly disinclined to produce any document to show before this Forum that the repairing charge of the material vehicle essentially had gone past Rs.10,000/-. Thus looking at the issue from these angles, it do appear that the opposite parties’ contentions do not hold water in the end. What is more, the commission report that forms the part of the records manifestly furthers the complainant’s case. Thus going by the materials available before us in its entirety we are of the considered view that the complainant’s case merit acceptance. Needless to say the complainant is entitled to relief.
In the result complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) the opposite parties received from the complainant in excess. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) as cost to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of December, 2017.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Haridas P.K. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the RC book
Ext.A2 - Copy of the invoice dated 23.12.15
Ext.A3 - Copy of the receipt
Ext.A4 - Copy of the invoice dated 3.2.2016
Ext.A5 - Copy of the invoice dated 6.6.2017
Ext.A6 - Pollution under control certificate dated 3.10.2016
Ext.A7 - Pollution under control certificate dated 4.12.2017
CW1 - Harikumar.S. (Court witness)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - P.S. Muhammed Riyas (Witness)
// True Copy //
.By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
