IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 75/2020 (filed on 19-06-2020)
Petitioner : Abdul Vahab,
Smart Cottage,
Pallikkachira, Paippad,
Changanacherry,
Pin – 686 537.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Manager,
Purackal Motors,
Manippuzha,
Kottayam – 686002.
(Adv. D. Zaibo)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Complaint is filed under Section 13 of the consumer protection Act 1986.
The complaint is as follows:
The complainant purchased a two wheeler with registration no KL05AB9624 which had to be repaired after the warranty period and the complainant had to pay several amounts on these repairs as demanded by the opposite party. Lastly in 2020 January the vehicle showed starting complaint again and it was entrusted with the opposite party. The opposite party gave a bill of Rs.10560/- The complainant took delivery of the vehicle by payingRs.10,000/-on 21.05.2020. On 22.05.2020 the scooter was again stopped on the road and was entrusted with the National work shop at Payippad by paying Rs.2400/-. The opposite party took the money for the spare parts which were not used in the vehicle. It was informed by National workshop that the said parts were not replaced. The opposite party has tried to cheat the complainant who is a senior citizen for undue gain. So the complaint is filed for compensation for the damages caused due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
Upon notice from this Commission the opposite party appeared and filed version resisting the allegations in the complaint as the vehicle of the complainant was purchased in the year2010 and the same had covered more than 50000 KMs during the last 10 years. The vehicle had only usual mechanical complaints which were usually rectified by normal services or by replacement of necessary parts. Repairs covered under warranty were done free of cost during the warranty period and on effecting payments there after. No excess amount were collected from the complainant which was complained of by the complainant for the first time before this commission. The vehicle was brought to the opposite party’s service centre on 27.01.20with various complaints including carburettor cleaning, silencer complaints etc. The previous service was done 3years before i..e on 30.06.2017.The vehicle was in a bad condition caused due to lack of timely maintenance and replacements of spares. The opposite party gave an estimate of Rs.12000/- to15000/-for completing the said works but the complainant was not willing to spend that much amount and instructed the opposite party to do only the urgent repairs. Accordingly the urgently needed works were done which cost Rs. 10560/- The complainant took delivery on 21.05.20 upon paying only Rs.10000/- . The subsequent complaints of the vehicle is not known to the opposite party. Later the vehicle was not brought to any of the service centers of the opposite party. The allegation that the opposite party has charged for the unused parts also is baseless. The complainant has not even listed the said parts. The opposite party is a reputed establishment. The allegation that the vehicle had a starting trouble at Changanassery was not known to the opposite party. The opposite party had a workshop at Changanassery but the vehicle was not brought there instead, he approached a local workshop. The complainant has failed to prove his allegation that the opposite party had cheated him by not supplying the listed spare parts in the bill. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and there is no mental agony caused to the complainant which is to be compensated.
The evidence of this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant along with the documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A10 and the proof affidavit of the opposite party. The opposite party has not adduced any documentary evidence.
Considering the pleadings and evidence, we frame the following issue that
whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and if
so whether it caused any compensatable damages to the complainant.
In answer to the above point, perusing the complaint, we see that the complainant purchased his two wheeler from the opposite party in the year 2010. During and after the warranty period the vehicle showed continuous damages and required repair works. The opposite party undertook the repair works and received more money from the complainant than required and on the
occasion of the last repair, the opposite party cheated the complainant by charging him for parts which were not in the bill.
The opposite party defended the allegations raising the contentions that the
complainant had used the vehicle for the last 10years and the vehicle had only usual repair due to wear and tear only. The opposite party had repaired the same
and several times satisfactorily and only on the last repair due to the careless use
and rash driving the vehicle needed a total repair and a number of spare parts had to be replaced which would have amounted to Rs.12000 -15000 as per the estimate. When this was informed to the complainant due to the financial constraint, he demanded to do only minimum repair and the op did accordingly.
The bill amount was Rs.10500/- but the complainant took delivery only on 28.5.2020 on payment of Rs.10,000/- only. No deficiency as alleged.
The complainant raises the allegation that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect. But he has not adduced any evidence to prove this fact. The complainant is alleging manufacturing defect but he has not cared to prove the allegation by taking the evidence of an expert. Further he has not produced any document which would have proved the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. So the said allegation is not worth to consider.
The second allegation is that the opposite party has charged him for the unused spare parts. Though he has produced the alleged bill of 28.01.2020, he has failed to establish which were the necessary party and which were the unused parts and the amount he had to pay for the same. The complainant himself has deposed that he took the repaired vehicle delayed because of his financial constraints.
On a detailed examination of the evidence and pleadings we are of the view that the complainant has approached this commission in an experimental manner and not with clean hands. We find no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is dismissed for want of evidence.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 18th day of September, 2021.
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant.
A1 – Copy of cash receipt dtd.03-12-2010 issued by opposite party
A2 – Copy of RC book (KL-05-AB-9624)
A3 – Copy of cash bill dtd.28-01-2020 issued by opposite party
A4 – Copy of estimate dtd.23-05-20 by National Paippad
A5 – Copy of job card No.84577 issued by opposite party
A6 – Copy of quotation dtd.24-10-14 issued by opposite party
A7 – Copy of receipt issued by Chingavanam Police Station
A8 – Copy of form No.8B
A9- Copy of quotation dtd.11-12-19 issued by opposite party
A10 – Copy of ration card (1524098547)
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
