By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant had purchased a Vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-72-5790 on 17.11.2014 on loan. On 19.12.2017, he found some defects in the vehicle and so, he brought the vehicle to the service centre of the second Opposite Party. They found fault in the engine and received Rs.5,000/- from the Complainant towards advance for replacing the engine. On 29.01.2018, when he contacted the second Opposite Party they told that the work of the vehicle was over and demanded Rs.1,08,000/- towards the repair charge. The Complainant is only depending upon the income derived from this vehicle. So, he was unable to give this much amount. Thus, he lost his income. He thus failed to pay the loan instalments and found out an alternative way to look after his family. So, he mentally depressed. Hence, he wants to get Rs.60,000/- as loss of income, Rs.1,08,000/- towards expenses of the repair work and Rs.24,600/- towards the loan instalment due. Thus this compliant to get Rs.1,92,600/- in total from the second Opposite Party.
3. Thereafter, he amended the complaint and inserted that the Second Opposite Party caused damages to the vehicle and so he is entitled to get a new vehicle or the value of a new vehicle.
4. First Opposite Party had not appeared and thereafter, Complainant impleaded the second Opposite Party and proceeded the complaint only against the second Opposite Party.
5. The second Opposite Party filed version and additional version which in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is not a consumer under section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act. The vehicle involved in this case is a commercial vehicle and that the Complainant is not using the vehicle on self-employment. So, he does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.
6. This Opposite Party admits that the Complainant purchased the vehicle from this Opposite Party. The Complainant is not maintaining the vehicle properly and that periodical services of the vehicle were not done properly. They admitted that the Complainant brought the vehicle to the service centre of this Opposite Party. But, they denied that one day the Complainant found the vehicle in a totally dismantled condition. They admitted that they have received Rs.5,000/- as advance towards repair charge. The Opposite Party intimated the Complainant on 29.01.2017 that the engine of vehicle is damaged and the same needs replacement with new one. They denied that when the Complainant came to take delivery of the vehicle, the Opposite Party demanded Rs.1,08,000/- all in a sudden and that the Complainant found it difficult to pay. They denied that the Complainant lost his livelihood and he does not any other means to look after his family and thus he is entitled to get the amount sought for. The Complainant has purchased the vehicle in the year 2014 and vehicle was not serviced properly which shows that he has not maintained the vehicle in a well manner. The vehicle was run by another person. It was entrusted to this Opposite Party complaining rear noise and engine oil leakage. The Opposite Party found oil leak, white smoke and rear noise. Upon checking, it was found that oil is clotted in the engine bottom such that cam shaft of the engine of the vehicle became in a ceased condition due to lack of lubrication. So the engine assembly needs to be replaced. The Opposite Party informed the same to the Complainant and stated the expected cost as more than Rupees One Lakh. At that time, the Complainant wanted to hold the repair for some time as he wants to enquire outside whether the same can be done cheaply. Thereafter, on 12.01.2018, the Complainant approached Opposite Party and wanted to go by repair by replacing engine assembly. This Opposite Party intimated the Complainant that it may take four months for the engine assembly to be changed as it has obtained from the manufacturer. Thus the Complainant directed to pay an advance of Rs.5,000/-. The complaint paid the advance amount on 23.01.2018. Accordingly the engine work completed on 10.04.2018 and the same was intimated to the Complainant on the same day. The bill amount for the repair amounts to Rs.1,03,366/-. After the work, when the Opposite Party issued the bill, the Complainant stated that he does not have enough money and he will take delivery after some time. But, thereafter, this Opposite Party received the notice from this Hon`ble commission in this case. So the Opposite Party approached the Complainant and agreed to grand discount of Rs.26,366/- and it was agreed by the Complainant. But the Complainant did no turn up and he started demanding more discounts and threatened the staffs also. So this Opposite Party realised that the Complainant has initiated this complaint as a measure of compulsion. This Opposite Party denied that this Opposite Party destroyed the vehicle and so the Complainant cannot use the vehicle anymore. Therefore his intention to get a new vehicle or it’s cost is baseless. The repair work was started only on demand by the Complainant and hence this complaint is to be dismissed.
7. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of
second Opposite Party ?.
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled to get anything from
the second Opposite Party?
3. Reliefs and Cost.
8. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, PW2 OPW1, Ext.A1 to A8, Ext. B1 and Ext.X1. Heard both sides.
9. Point No.1&2:- The Complainant’s specific case in the complaint is that he entrusted his vehicle to the second Opposite Party for repair and after repair, he found difficulty in paying the repair charge of Rs.1,08,000/-. According to him, he is unable to pay this much amount because, he is depending only upon the income derived from this vehicle. So it is revealed from the complaint that Complainant is financially poor and so, he is unable to pay the repair charge. His only grievance at that time is that the second Opposite Party did not reveal the repair charge to him before the repair. But, when he started to give evidence before this commission, he developed his case and stated that without his consent, the second Opposite Party changed the engine of the vehicle and due to this reason, he is liable to pay Rs.1,08,000/- towards repairing charge. So, at the time of evidence, he shaped his case in a manner to show that the second Opposite Party without his consent replaced the engine of the vehicle and so, according to him, he is not liable to pay Rs.1,08,000/-. Subsequent to the complaint, he amended the complaint and inserted a new prayer to get a new vehicle or to get it’s value alleging that the second Opposite Party destroyed the vehicle.
10. The second Opposite Party affirmed in their version itself that they repaired the vehicle and replaced the engine only after getting the consent from the Complainant and though they repaired the vehicle, the Complainant without giving the repair charge, filed this case in order to get more discount from this Opposite Party. They stated that after the complaint, they agreed to give a discount of Rs.26,366/- and even though the Complainant was ready to accept this offer, without payment, he started to threaten their staffs to get more discount.
11. To prove the case of Complainant, he was examined as PW1. He has also examined PW2, the Expert commissioner who had inspected the vehicle to report the condition of the vehicle which is admittedly parked in the garage of second Opposite Party. To disprove the case of the second Opposite Party, the service manager has given evidence as OPW1. Ext.A1 is the installation certificate which was issued by Tata Motors Ltd. when they fitted speed governor to the vehicle. Ext.A2 is the customer interaction sheet issued by second Opposite Party which shows the complaints of the vehicle. Ext.A3 to A8 is the documents of the vehicle. Ext.X1 is the report of the expert Commissioner.
12. Here, absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the vehicle is a commercial vehicle and Complainant used it for commercial purposes. The specific case of Complainant is that he is depending upon the income derived from this vehicle. No materials to disprove it. So, it is to be held that the Complainant is a consumer.
13. As we stated earlier, this is a case where the Complainant changed his stand when he started to give evidence before this commission. Earlier case was that he was unable to give the repair charge of Rs.1,08,000/- to the second Opposite Party and due to the damage of the vehicle, he wanted to get a new vehicle or it’s value. But when he examined before this commission he changed his case. PW1 deposed that the second Opposite Party changed the engine of the vehicle without his consent and that they demanded a huge amount towards repair charge which he is not willing to pay and that since time lapsed, the vehicle was damaged and thus he wants to get new vehicle or it’s value from the second Opposite Party.
13. The counsel for the second Opposite Party argued that from the inception of the complaint, the Complainant does not have a case that without his permission, the second Opposite Party changed the engine and therefore he has no liability to pay the repair charge. When we perused the complaint, there is no whisper to see that the second Opposite Party repaired the vehicle without the knowledge of the Complainant. At that time, Complainant’s main grievance is that the second Opposite Party did not disclose the amount before the repair and he was unable to pay this huge amount. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1 itself, it can be seen that he changed his case in order to get a new vehicle or it’s value which he is not entitled to get. PW1 admitted that he was unable to bring the vehicle after work due to non-availability of funds and second Opposite Party allowed him to take the vehicle if he pays Rs.1,08,000/-. It is very interesting to note that Complainant filed an I.A.189/2018 before this commission for getting instalments to pay this amount. According to PW1, if he was allowed to pay the amount by instalments by this Commission, he was ready to pay and ready to get back the vehicle. Ext.B1 is a consent letter allegedly given by the Complainant to the second Opposite Party which is admittedly signed by the Complainant. As per Ext.B1, the Complainant was ready to pay the amount after the discount of Rs.26,366/-. He deposed that it was written by him due to threat from second Opposite Party. But, admittedly he had not given any complaint before police about this threatening. Therefore it is evident that the Complainant purposefully filed this case falsely to get the repaired vehicle without giving the repair charge.
14. PW2 is the Expert Commissioner and Ext.C1 is his report. In Ext.C1, the Commissioner noted some damages to the vehicle. But, it is evident that these damages were occurred due to the attitude of the Complainant himself. Even if, he was ready to pay the repair charge as per Ext.B1 consent letter and request in I.A 189/2018, subsequently he withdrawn from it and evidently filed this complaint without any basis. So, the evidence before this Commission would clearly shows that without giving the repair charges, the Complainant filed this complaint and thereafter changed his case to get a new vehicle or it’s value. So, we found that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the second Opposite Party and thus the Complainant is not entitled to get anything from the second Opposite Party. So these points are found against the Complainant.
15. Point No.3: Since Point No.1& 2 is found against the Complainant, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15th day of July 2022.
Date of Filing:-21.03.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Raveendran. K. P. Driver.
PW2. Premdas. T. P. Workshop Superintendent.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Manoj Kumar. N. A. Service Manager.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Installation Certificate. Dt:23.10.2017.
A2. Customer Interaction Sheet. Dt:29.01.2018.
A3. Copy of Registration Certificate.
A4. Pollution Under Control Certificate. Dt:16.12.2017.
A5. Copy of Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance.
A6. Copy of Collection Receipt.
A7. Copy of Tax License.
A8. Copy of Driving License.
X1. Expert Commission Report. Dt:05.11.2019.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Letter issued by Complainant to the Opposite Party.
Dt:19.06.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRC, WAYANAD.
