AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THIS appeal is pending for admission for quite some time. Earlier we had issued notice before admission to the respondents and it is noticed that attempts were made to serve him but it appears the respondent despite intimation by postal authority did not claim the same.
WE are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on perusal of the material available in the appeal paper book. Appellant is original complainant and respondent original O.P. parties are referred in the judgment with reference to their status in the complaint.
Complainant appellant, being not satisfied with the award of quantum of compensation as awarded by the District Forum, has filed this appeal. Few relevant Facts:
COMPLAINANT is owner of truck which he was plying through driver for his livelihood. He entrusted the work to the O.P. for certain repairs and paid a sum of Rs. 35,000/- However, the O.P. did not execute the work to his satisfaction and for the period of about four months the vehicle remained in the garage of the O.P. In this circumstance he filed the complaint.
O.P. appeared in response to the process issued and denied the case and claim of the complainant. He asserted that he executed the work in respect of driver-cabin and incurred expenses of Rs. 24,000/-. It is further noticed that Surveyor was appointed who made report and who also certified that work to the extent of Rs. 24,000/- to the same vehicle was excuted. The District Forum held O.P. being deficient for not execution of complete work of repair and ordered refund of Rs. 11,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 24,000/- for repairs from Rs. 35,000/- paid by the complainant and complainant having not satisfied had filed this appeal. By perusal of the memo of appeal it is noticed that the complainant had claimed compensation/damages for the period of 3 to 4 months when the vehicle remained idle in the garage of the O.P.
IT is noticed that the District Forum has not considered the said aspect at all.
IN our view although no material is made available by the complainant to show what was the income derived from the said vehicle, in our view it will be legitimate to think that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. will be fair margin in the fact situation as obtained in the matter herein. According to the complainant the vehicle remained with the O.P. for a period of four months. Therefore, excluding period of one month for repairs, complainant will have to be compensated for the period of three months at the aforesaid rate. Therefore, we order a sum of Rs. 9,000/- as damages to the complainant.
We modify the award accordingly. ORDER Appeal is allowed as under: 1. Award of the District Forum for refund of Rs. 11,000/- stands confirmed as also payment of interest as provided therein. 2. We order a sum of Rs. 9,000/- as damages to the complainant during which period the vehicle remained in the garage of the O.P. 3. Operative Clause 2 awarding cost of Rs. 2,000/- stands confirmed. 4. No order as to cost. 5. Office to furnish copies of the order to the parties.
Appeal allowed.