State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Zenon C.Thomas, vs Sijo Thomas, on 12 May, 2011
Daily Order
First Appeal No. A/10/37 (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/06/2009 in Case No. CC 165/08 of District Idukki) 1. Zenon.C Thomas ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sijo Thomas ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO: 37/2010
JUDGMENT DATED: 12-05-2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
Zenon C.Thomas,
Choorakkattu House, : APPELLANT
Nariyamparakara,
Kattappana.
(By Adv:Sri.C.S.Rajmohan)
Vs.
Sijo Thomas,
Skillmee Maruthio Service Centre, : RESPONDENT
Kattappana.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.165/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The complaint stands dismissed.
2. It is the case of the complainant that on 2/5/2007 he had entrusted the Tata Indigo car owned by him with the opposite party, workshop owner for changing the oil. When he returned for taking the vehicle at about 1.pm on the same day the opposite party told him that the timing belt to be immediately changed failing which the vehicle will develop serious complications and that a sum around Rs.30,000/- would have to be spent for repairs in the above eventuality. He agreed to replace the timing belt and return the vehicle by about 5 pm on the same day. When he returned at 5 pm he was told that the head gasket, water pump and connecting rod also should be replaced. As he had to go to Paravur he availed a taxi for the same. On 8/5/2007 he purchased the materials as directed by the opposite party. On 11/5/2007 the vehicle was returned to him. He was also given a bill for Rs.5620/- for cost of repairs. He wanted to examine the bill in detail and hence signed in the bill and agreed to pay the amount later. On the same day on the way to Thrissur after running about 50 Kms, the vehicle developed problems. He showed the vehicle at a workshop at Ollur, near Thrissur. The workshop man told him that there are serious mechanical problems to the vehicle and the vehicle was kept at the workshop. Later he entrusted the vehicle at Tata Authorised Service Centre at Irinjalakkuda. He had to incur a sum of Rs.36,675/- for repair of the vehicle at the authorized service centre. It is alleged that the opposite party was experimenting with the vehicle although he had entrusted the vehicle only for oil changing. The opposite party did not effect the repairs properly. He had to incur the repair cost of Rs.36,675/- only on account of the defects in the repairs executed by the opposite party. He filed a complaint before the DYSP, Kattappana. As a counter blast, the opposite party filed a complaint before the Munsiff Court, Kattappana against the complainant.
3. On the other hand, the opposite party had filed version contending that the vehicle was entrusted to him not for oil change but on the complaint that the vehicle was getting over heated after running about 15 to 20 Kms and get stopped automatically. Only after the engine cools down, the vehicle can be restarted and again the over heating problem recurred. The mechanic who examined the vehicle found that there is complaint in the engine head and the cooling process is not working and that there is a defect to the connecting rod bearing and that it is not getting released. The mechanic also told that the timing belt, head gasket, oil pipe to the turbo should be replaced and the crank should be polished from the lathe and the head also should be levelled at the lathe and the tension adjuster should be replaced. According to the opposite party, the Maruthi car owned by him was given to the complainant as he had to go to Thrissur urgently. Subsequently on 9/5/2007 the complainant provided the materials required for the repairs. But the gasket connector rod bearing etc was substandard. According to him the complainant told him that the original spares are very costly and that he intended to sell the vehicle immediately and that the repair need to done using the above materials. It was also told that the water pump was omitted to be taken, although he had purchased the same and agreed to provide the same subsequently. According to the opposite party he repaired the vehicle using the spares provided by the complainant. As the oil pipe to the turbo was not available as suggested by the complainant an ordinary pipe was purchased and the same was connected by using M seal. The complainant was also given 6 litres of oil if on the way oil leak occurs. The cost of the above oil has also been billed. The opposite party had also told that the spring of the pump is not working and the alternator belt is found broken and it is possible that the engine will be stuck on the way. The complainant told him that the vehicle will be kept at his house and at the time of the payment of the repairing charges bill the other articles would also be provided for replacing. According to him the existing problems of the vehicle has been mentioned in the repair bill itself and the same has been endorsed by the complainant. As the complainant happened to be closely known to the opposite party he released the vehicle without receiving the repair charges. The rest of the allegations are denied. He has filed a Civil Suit before Munsiff Court, Kattappana for getting the payment of Rs.5620/-, the repair charges.
4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 to 3, DW1 & 2, Exts.P1 to P3 and R1 to R3.
5. The Forum has dismissed the complaint stressing on some of the contradictions in the testimony of PW1. We find that PW1 the complainant has testified with respect to the sequence of events. PW2 the mechanic of the Tata Authorised Service Centre at Irinjalakkuda who executed the repairs after the vehicle broke down has testified. Ext.P1 is the bill with respect to the repairs executed at the above Tata Service Centre. As per the item wise bill the total amount is Rs.36,675.43. Ext.P2 is a letter issued by PW2 dated:25/6/2007 mentioning the defects that the vehicle was having and the reasons for the same. According to him the defects occurred are mainly on account of the defective changing of the timing belt. It is also noted that the oil pipe to the turbo is not seen in the engine. It is also mentioned that without fixing the oil pipe, the places of oil circulation are seen blocked using M seal. Hence as the vehicle was run without oil the turbo unit which is the major component of the engine was damaged and also damaging the other items of the engine. PW3 is the customer service manager of the above Tata Service Centre. He has also testified in support of the evidence tendered by PW2.
6. The evidence adduced at the instance of the opposite party, is the testimony of the opposite party himself and that of DW2 who is a mechanic working at Tata Service Centre, Kattappana. He has testified in general as to the defects of Tata Indigo vehicle. According to him after running about 30,000.Kms, the vehicle would require repairs. Ext.R1 is the photocopy of the repair bill issued by the opposite party. It is seen therein that the other existing defects are written in small letters at the bottom. In the absence of the original it is not possible to rely on the same as it appears to be written subsequently. Anyway with the above existing defects it cannot be believed that the complainant has taken custody of the vehicle and used the same for going to a somewhat distant place. It is seen written in Ext.R1 at the bottom that there is oil leak and that spring of the pump is defective and the alternator belt is broken. It cannot be believed that the complainant has agreed to pay the amount of Rs.5620/- without getting the above repairs done also. In the circumstances, it appears that the opposite party was not conversant in repairing such vehicles and that he effected some repairs without proper knowledge and experience and that the same resulted in the damages caused to the vehicle, We find that the Civil Suit has been filed subsequent to the police complaint etc. We find that it is on account of imperfect execution of the repairs done by the opposite party that the complainant had to suffer the excessive repair costs and the defects. Hence the order of the Forum is set aside. The opposite party/respondent is directed to pay the amount claimed ie Rs.36,675/- to the complaint with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the complaint ie on 26/9/2008. The respondent is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from the date of this order ie 12/5/2007.
In the result the appeal is allowed as above.
Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with copy of this judgment.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL.
[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT