Koshy Ninan vs Renjith

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in F.A. No. 439/2016 dated 29.05.2018.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

On 16.12.2014, Petitioner/Complainant entrusted his Skoda Car in the Respondent/Opposite Party service center. Respondent inspected the said vehicle, prepared an estimate of the parts to be replaced. After receiving an amount of Rs. 28,500/- from the Petitioner, the Respondent repaired the Car. Later, noticing stiffness on steering wheel, the Petitioner again entrusted his vehicle to the Respondent for repair. After inspecting the vehicle, the Respondent told that Belt Adjuster and Tentional Pulley were broken and had to be replaced. He ordered them online from General Auto Spares Cochin. The Respondent charged Rs. 9,000/- towards cost of the parts from the Petitioner, in addition to labour charges of Rs 4700/-. On 01.01.2015, the electrical works carried out in the workshop of the Respondent resulted in the burning of the wires of battery and wires linking Air Conditioners due to which the vehicle could not be restored to its proper condition and usage. Finding no other alternative, the Petitioner entrusted the vehicle with L & U German Cars Workshop and got it repaired with new spare parts and replaced the Engine-Guard by spending Rs. 73,666/- to rectify the faulty and negligent handling. The Petitioner informed the Respondent about the same and sought refund of Rs. 42,900/-, the amount spent on the repair of the vehicle. Respondent, however, did not refund the amount claimed. Hence, the Complaint was filed before District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.

The Complaint was contested by the Respondent in the District Forum stating that the Complaint was not maintainable as the Petitioner was a second hand vehicle dealer engaged in buying and selling of cars and other vehicles for profit. It was further contended that all replacements made by the Respondent were done properly to the absolute satisfaction of the Petitioner. The only spare part bought in addition to what was mentioned in the estimate was reverse switch and that was also done with the consent of Petitioner. The bills in regard to the said repairs were also given to the Petitioner.

The District Forum vide order 30.05.2016, dismissed the Complaint on the ground that from the available evidence and documents it was clear that the vehicle was repaired by the Respondent and Petitioner did not place any evidence on record which could prove that defects were not rectified by the Respondent.

The Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission against the orders passed by the District Forum. The State Commission, vide order dated 29.05.2018, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Petitioner has not produced any certificate from any mechanic or examined any expert as witness to prove the allegations made in the Complaint. Further, Petitioner has not made any Complaint to the Respondent after service other than the legal notice dated 28.05.2015. Moreover, Petitioner has failed to place any material on record which could prove that repairs done by the Respondent was defective and other workshop had to rectify the defective work done by the Respondent.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He reiterated the arguments as already stated above.

The District Forum has given a clear finding that Petitioner has not placed any relevant documents or evidence which could prove that the Petitioner raised any objection regarding defective repair work done by the Respondent at any point of time prior to the filing of said Complaint.

The State Commission has also perused all the evidence available on record and has opined that the Petitioner has not produced any certificate from any mechanic or examined any expert as witness to prove the allegations made in the Complaint.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and on careful consideration of the entire record, we find that the District Forum as well as State Commission have thoroughly gone into the matter and given justified reasoning while passing their orders.

In view of the above, the present Revision Petition is dismissed as there is no merit in the Petition and Orders passed by both District Forum as well as State Commission are confirmed.