S.L.N. AUTO SERVICE STATION vs HERALD ALFRED LEWIS

THE order dated 16.11.1991 is recalled. THE Learned Counsel for the parties were heard. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-8-1991 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hassan District, Hassan, in Complaint No. CPA/MD/524/90-91, directing the refund of Rs. 666.68p with interest at 10% per annum thereon from the date of the order and also granting the damages of an amount of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 200/-.

THE facts briefly stated, are as follows:- THE complainant purchased a Bajaj Chetak Scooter from the appellant M/s. S.L.N. Auto Service, Hassan on 26.3.1990. THE vehicle was delivered to the complainant with a warranty card as per Exhibit P2. THE complainant got it serviced on 3.5.1990. On 4.5.1990, he found a defect in the engine, it was giving an unusual sound. THE complainant took the vehicle on 7.5.1990 to the appellant for its examination and repairs. THE appellant on examining the vehicle informed the complainant that there was a problem with gear and engine was to be tuned up. THE appellant did not repair the vehicle though it was in the warranty period. THE appellant made the complainant to purchase the spare parts required for an amount of Rs. 426.68p and he was also made to pay labour charges of an amount of Rs. 240. The complainant further averred that even though he made repeated demands with the appellant to pay back the spare parts and repair charges as the defect found with the vehicle was within the warranty period. Even then the appellant did not make the payment of the said amount. The complainant was obliged to make a complaint and request the manufacturer i.e., respondent No. 2 herein to direct the appellant to refund the amounts so collected from the complainant by him. The averments in the complaint further showed that the complainant suffered mental agony and also hardship while taking up the matters with the service engineers and manufacturers of the vehicle. He claimed the amount of Rs. 666.68p collected from him towards the repair charges and also an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards damages.

The appellant filed the statement of objections and contested demands. The complainant substantiated the averments made by him by examining himself as PW1 and one another witness was examined as PW2 and got Exhibits P1 to P11 marked in evidence. The appellant examined himself as RW1 and got Exhibits Rl to R3 marked in evidence. The District Forum on consideration of this material placed on record by the parties granted the claim made by the complainant as referred above.

THE Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that he would not dispute the refund of an amount of Rs. 666.68p and also the cost of Rs. 200/- awarded and he further submitted that the same has already been paid to the complainant. THE Learned Counsel further submitted that the damages of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Forum was erroneous. THE evidence placed on record did not show that the complainant was entitled to damages in any sum. We have perused the evidence placed on record by the parties and also the documents exhibited in the case. It is clear from the material on record that the complainant was made to pay the charges for the spare parts when he took the vehicle to the appellant on 7.5.1990 even though the repair was to be made during the warranty period.

THE complainant has stated in his evidence that he made demands for the refund of the said amount of the spare parts collected from him by the appellant with the appellant and as well as the manufacturers of the vehicle. He has also further stated that even though the manufacturers of the vehicle directed the appellant to refund the spare parts amount collected by him, the appellant did not refund the said amount till the order was made by the District Forum. THE complainant has further averred in his evidence that he had incurred the expenses of an amount of Rs. 1,500/- for his tips to Mangalore, Hassan and Udupi for claiming the refund of the said amount from the manufacturers of the vehicle and he has also further claimed an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards damages. THE cross-examination of the complainant does not show that the appellant did at all deny these facts. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the evidence placed on record made by the Forum and finding recorded by it in granting the amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards damages does not suffer from any infirmity. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the said finding recorded by the District Forum. In the result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. The Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.