The present Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 12.07.2013 passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.326 of 2012.

2.      The brief facts of the case as per the Petitioner/Complainant are that the Petitioner/Complainant was the registered owner of Maruti Alto Car.  The vehicle met with an accident on 21.10. 2009.  It was having a valid comprehensive insurance policy and the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.1,62,126/-. Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner informed the Opposite Party/Respondent, who deputed a person to shift the damaged vehicle to the workshop.  The initial estimated repair charges were Rs.40,000/- and it was to be refunded by the insurance company after deducting 20% of the total amount.  The vehicle was entrusted for repair works.  The repair was not carried out within 5 days.  The Petitioner contacted the 1^st opposite party several times.  On 31.12.2009, the  Respondent No.1  directed the Petitioner to remit Rs.84,893/- and he remitted the entire amount and also purchased accessories worth Rs.700/- and handed them over to the Respondent No.1. The Petitioner was, however, surprised to note that the repairing and painting works of the vehicle were not properly done. On  the assurance given by the Respondent No.1 the vehicle was entrusted to Respondent No.2/Opposite party No.2 who was its sister concern. On 11.01.2010, the Opposite Party handed over the detailed bill and on verification it was found that the articles or equipments as per the detailed bill were not used for the repairing of the vehicle.  The damaged articles were not returned to the complainant after replacement.  Even after repair, the vehicle was not in good condition.  The painting of the vehicle was not properly done.  Further, it was contended that he was entitled to get the insurance amount from the Respondent No.3/Opposite Party on total loss basis in view of the cost of repair.  The Petitioner assert that the Respondent No.1 prepared a bill for Rs.1,44,964/- out of which Rs.84,893/- was collected from the Petitioner and the balance amount was collected from the Insurance Company.  The Respondent No.1 was liable to indemnify the loss which occurred to the Petitioner.  The negligent act of the Respondent No.1amounted to the loss of money to the Petitioner and hence he was liable to return Rs.84,893/- with interest.  It was also prayed that to repair and complete the painting works of the vehicle within a stipulated period.  The Petitioner also prayed for returning the replaced articles and also Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony. 

3.   The Respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement stating that the vehicle met with an accident and entrusted for repairing the vehicle.  The initial estimated charge for the repair work was Rs.40,000/-.  The Petitioner was informed that the Insurance Company—Respondent No.3 was not liable to pay the full charges and the claim amount would be calculated after depreciation. The Respondents denied that they had given any assurance to repair the vehicle within 5 days and in fact had informed that the major works would be completed in a month.  The repairing and painting works of the vehicle were properly done and the remaining painting works was to be done by the Respondent No.2 was also not correct.  The vehicle was delivered to the Petitioner completing all repair works including painting to his satisfaction. The opposite parties returned all major parts replaced in the Petitioner’s vehicle.  It was also stated that no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service was committed by the Respondents.  It was contended since serious damage was caused to the vehicle the repairing charges would be above the present value of the vehicle and the Respondent No.3 would not sanction huge amount after depreciation.  The vehicle was repaired with the instructions of the Petitioner and  insisted that they do the work free of cost.  Further, the Petitioner had instructed the Respondents No.1 and 2 to replace the air conditioner with a new one.  A bill for Rs.1,44,964/- was prepared out of  which Rs.84,893/- was collected from the Petitioner  and the balance amount was given by the Insurance Company. The Complaint was filed in order to grab money by raising baseless allegations.  Hence, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.       In the written statement filed by the Respondent No.3,  it was stated that he was an unnecessary party and denied all the allegations raised in the complaint. 

5.      The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta (for short, ‘District Forum’) vide its order dated 03.03.2012 while partly allowing the Complaint filed by the Petitioner, held as under;

“ In the result, complaint is partly allowed thereby opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to return the excess amount of Rs.24,778/-(Rupees twenty four thousand seven hundred and seventy eight only) collected from the complainant and to repair the defect of the vehicle noted in Ext. C1 report within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which they are directed to pay Rs.16,793/-(Rupees Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred and ninety three only), the amount required for further repairs as per Ext.C1 to the complainant along with Rs.24,778/-, the excess amount collected by them. They are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) as cost. They are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will follow 10% interest from this date till the realization of the whole amount. Complainant is directed to produce the vehicle before the opposite party if they directs to do so.”  

6.      Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner has filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while modifying the order of the District Forum, observed as under;

“ In the result, appeal is dismissed. We modify the order and direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to pay Rs.24,778/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.01.2010 till realization. We also direct 1^st and 2^nd respondents to pay Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings.  The order is to comply within 30 days on receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, appellant is entitled to recover 12% interest till realization.”

7.      I have heard the Counsel for the Parties. The Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is seeking relief from only Respondents No.1 and 2 and he has no grievance or claim against Respondent No.3. Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the learned State Commission has grossly erred in reducing the relief granted by the District Forum in an appeal filed by the Consumer. The impugned order is liable to be quashed. He further contended that the learned State Commission omitted to appreciate and weigh the evidence led by the expert Commissioner, solely on the ground that there was a time lag which is highly unreasonable and arbitrary especially when there is total non-cooperation on the part of the Respondents No.1 and 2 and because of their efforts to scuttle the report of the expert Commissioner and hence the impugned order is liable to modified. 

8.      I have gone through the record very carefully. The Petitioner has failed to place on record bills issued by the Respondents No.1 and 2 for the repairs of his vehicle. Though he has alleged that he was not satisfied with the repairs of the vehicle, the Petitioner, in his Complaint, has himself admitted that he had taken the delivery of the vehicle after repairs on 31.12.2010 without raising any objection regarding the quality of the repairs. He had also not raised any objection or grievances regarding non-return of the parts replaced in his vehicle at that point of time. Respondents No.1 and 2 on the other hand, in their written statement filed before the District Forum have stated that they have returned all the major parts replaced in the Complainant’s vehicle. Petitioner has failed to controvert the same.

9.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not show any evidence any form of a letter, complaint or communication regarding short-coming in the quality of the repairs as also non-receipt of the parts replaced in the Complainant’s vehicle.  In fact, it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner filed the Complaint almost about 4 months after he had taken back the repaired vehicle.

10.    Now coming to the report to the report of the Commissioner, it is an admitted fact that the inspection of the vehicle was held on 25.10.2010, i.e. almost 10 months after repairs of the vehicle in question.  After such a long period, we agree with the findings given by the State Commission, that it is not possible for the Commissioner to comment  or certify that whether the condition of the paint or the minor defects found by him were present on 31.12.2010, i.e. at the time, when the vehicle was taken back after the repairs by the Petitioner or had occurred subsequently in the following 10 months.

11.    Thus, in view of the above discussion, I find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown in the impugned order to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The impugned order does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity, by which it has partly allowed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and rightly modified the order of the District Forum. The present Revision Petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.

12.     No order as to cost.