Complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection act 1986 against OP seeking to get an order directing OP to pay Rs.184154/- towards compensation, to complainant alleging deficiency in service on the side of OP.
The brief facts of complainant’s case is that complainant is the owner of Palio car bearing Reg.No.KL 13K.5954. Complainant entrusted his said palio car to OP who is running car workshop, for rectifying the defect of oil leakage. Then after checking OP informed that the engine of the car became damaged. Thus complainant entrusted the vehicle to OP and engaged for doing engine work. It is submitted that OP had purchased engine parts worth Rs. 35000/- from Ideal Auto mobile and directed complainant to give the said amount and complainant had given Rs.13000/- to them as advance . Further OP had received Rs.19000/- as labour charge, Rs.8894 for purchasing spare parts and Rs.5000/- for laith work. The vehicle had delivered on 06/06/2013. On the very next day of delivery, the vehicle has shown the same defect of oil leakage and complaint had taken the vehicle to OP work shop and complaint about it. Then OP informed that it was due to defect in oil seal and 3 times replaced oil seal and received rs.1260/- for that. But the vehicle had starting trouble and became break down. On informing the facts to OP, they directed to contact any other workshop. As such he entrusted the vehicle to another workshop and from the said workshop complainant got information that the vehicle have engine complaint. Informing said fact to OP, but they reluctant to do further work. So he entrusted the vehicle to another workshop and engaged them to do engine work of the vehicle. So he had spent further 65000/- for engine work again. Hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP.
After receiving notice OP entered appearance through a counsel and filed written version denied the entire allegations of complainant. It is contended that the complainant brought his Palio Car at the workshop of the OP at Thana on 20/04/2012 for engine work. But the vehicle was kept idle for a period of one year, and the work could not be commenced for want of consent of the complainant. Later, the work was started during April 2013 as per the consent of the complainant. Accordingly the engine was removed and given to Kuttukaran workshop for laith work as instructed by the complainant as the laith work was not being done by this OP. It is also contended that all the engine spare parts were purchased and provided to the laith work shop by the complainant directly. This OP has no role in it. The OP has no connection or involvement with the purchase of spare parts as alleged by the complainant. The amount of Rs.19000/- alleged to be obtained from the complainant is Rs. 8500/- being the labour charge for removing and resetting of engine and the balance is for the additional work of radiator and electrical work etc. as requested by the complainant which has been clearly stated in Bill No. 5399 dated 06/06/2013. Amount of Rs. 5000/- being the laith charge was paid by the complainant directly to the laith work shop. After resetting the engine and on completion of other additional work of radiator and electrical work the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 06/06/2013. The complainant has neither approached nor informed anything about the vehicle thereafter to this OP as alleged. If the complainant produced the vehicle as alleged, this OP might have provided necessary service facilities. The defect if any to the vehicle might have been caused due to the poor quality of spare parts provided by the complainant. If at all complainant has any complaint on laith work he should have proceed against the said party as the vehicle for laith work was entrusted to M/s Kuttukkaran only as instructed and desired by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
On the side of complainant, he filed his chief-affidavit and was examined as Pw1 Ext.A1 to Ext.A9 was marked on the side of complainant. The manager of OP filed chief affidavit and was examined as Dw1. No documents were marked on the side of OP.
The question to be decided is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of OP?
Complainant’s main allegation is that he had given the vehicle to OP for rectifying the oil leakage of the vehicle, but OP done the engine work and received Rs.69154/- on the head of spare parts and labour charge and for laith work, but after delivery of the car, the same complaint again arised and he had to spent further Rs.65000/- for doing engine work again on another work shop due to reluctance on the part of OP to do correction work. Complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP.
On the other hand OP denied the entire allegations of the complainant except admitted the engine work done by them. According to OP, they have no connection with the payment of spare parts. All the engine parts were purchased by the complainant and provided to laith workshop directly and paid rs.5000/- doing laith work by the complainant himself. OP agreed that they received only Rs.19000/- from which Rs.8500/- being the labour work for removing and resetting of engine and balance is for the additional work of radiator and electrical works etc as requested by the complainant. OP further stated that after the complete work they delivered the vehicle to complainant on 06/06/2013and after that complainant has neither approached nor informed anything about the complaint of the vehicle to them. OP further submitted that defect if any to the vehicle might have been caused due to the poor quality of spare parts provided by the complainant to laith workshop and laith work shop is responsible for the further work if any done on the vehicle.
Complainant was examined as Pw1, He has given evidence in tune of his complaint. On analyzing his evidence, it is seen that complainant has denied the payment done by him for engine spare parts. Ideal auto mobiles and for laith work to laith workshop. Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 cash bill produced from the side of complainant clearly show that the amount mentioned in those bills were paid by complainant to OP on 06/06/2013. OP only admits Ext.A3 the labour cash bill Ext. A3 shows that complainant had paid rs.19000/- to OP and it includes engine for removing and resetting, head gasket replace and electrical connecting. From Ext.A1 and A3 we cannot assume that complainant had given spare parts price labour charge and laith work charge by himself to spare parts shop and laith work shop. During cross-examination, Dw1 admitted that laith work shop is situated inside the OP workshop and also admitted that they have issued Ext. A1 Bill to complainant. Dw1 also stated that they have not produced any counterfoil of bills and also taken any steps to substantiate their contention that complainant himself had purchased spare parts from Idial automobile and entrusted for laith work. Dw1 again deposed that Engine was reset by Kuttukaran laith workshop and reset by them. On analyze the whole evidence of Dw1 we can come to a conclusion that after entrusting the car in dispute to OP, OP had purchased spare parts and entrusted to laith work shopped done the entire engine work on the responsibility of OP themselves and collected price of spare parts, laith work charge and labour charge from the complainant. Dw1 again admits that due to the defective spare parts fitted in engine, the vehicle showed after words complaint. Ext.A4 to A9 shows that complaint had compelled to do engine workto the vehicle again on 13/09/2013 ie just after 3 months of 1st engine work from OP and had to spent Rs.56155/-to other workshop and for spare parts due to subsequent complaint on the vehicle.
For the aforesaid facts and circumstance, there is clear deficiency in service on the part of OP in doing the engine work of the car of the vehicle. Hence complainant is entitled to get relief from OP.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to repay Rs.45894 ie 46000/-(Rs.13000+19000+8894+5000) by them for spare parts, Laith work, and labour work from complainant. OP is further directed to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation. OP shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which Rs.46000/- carries interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint ie 09/09/2013 till realization. Complainant can realize the awarded amount from OP as per the provisions envisaged in Consumer Protection act. 2019.
Exts.
A1 – Cash bill dated 20/06/2013
A2– Cash bill dated 06/06/2013
A3 – Labour Cash bill dated 20/06/2013
A4 – Service station Cash bill dated 13/09/2013
A5 – Quotation
A6 – Cash bill dated 13/09/2013
A7 – Cash bill dated 13/09/2013
A8 – Cash bill dated 18/09/2013
A9 – Labour Cash bill dated 06/10/2013
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
