STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/16/341 M/S MARIKKAR MOTORS PRESENT ADDRESS - NEAR St.MARYS SCHOOL PATHANAMTHITTA 689645 ,KERALA.

ARUN PRESENT ADDRESS - SERVICE MANAGER MARIKKAR MOTORS PATHANAMTHITTA 689645 ,KERALA.

ANI PRESENT ADDRESS - SERVICE ADVISER MARIKKAR MOTORS PATHANAMTHITTA ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SHERIN SHA PRESENT ADDRESS - MADHURA HOUSE CHITTOOR ROAD PATHANAMTHITTA 689645 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

M/S MARIKKAR MOTORS, G.S KALKURA (Advocate)

ARUNANI FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SHERIN SHA DATED: 12/03/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.341/2016 JUDGEMENT DATED : 12.03.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.16/2015 on the files of DCDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANTS:

1. M/s Marikkar Motors, Near St. Mary’s School, Pathanamthitta - 689 645

2. Arun, Service Manager, Marikar (Motors), Pathanamthitta - 689 645

3. Ani (Service Adviser), Marikar (Motors), Pathanamthitta - 689 645 (by Adv. G.S. Kalkura)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Sherin Sha, Madhura House, Chittoor Road, Pathanamthitta - 689 645 (by Adv. Narayan R.)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER The opposite parties in C.C.No.16/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (the District Commission for short) are the appellants.

2. The complainant had approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service with regard to the repair works carried out at the workshop of the opposite parties. The complainant had entrusted his motor bike bearing registration No. KL st

3 U 6065 with the 1 opposite party for conducting the repair works. On 20.01.2015 he was informed by the opposite parties that the defects were rectified. But on riding the motor bike, the complainant could realise that all the defects were persisting, though several spare parts were replaced without consultation with the complainant. When he made enquiries, he was asked by the opposite parties to make the payment and to take back the motor bike. The complainant was not ready to take back the motor bike as the defects were not rectified. He insisted that no money will be paid as the defect was not rectified. The Service Manager of the opposite party had abused the complainant. When the complainant insisted that the defects should be rectified, the service manager of the opposite party was not prepared to hear the request made by the complainant. So the complainant had left the workshop by retaining the vehicle with the opposite parties.

3. On 22.01.2015 when the complainant had gone to the workshop he could find that the silencer of the motor bike in a bended condition, the seat rest was torn off, the number plate and mud guard got damaged and several scratches were also seen on the motor bike. While riding the motor bike it was slipping to one side. The opposite parties had collected an amount of Rs.1,707/-(Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seven only) for repair works. But nothing was done by them. They had also caused substantial damages to the vehicle. For repairing these damages an amount of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand only) has to be paid. The complainant would seek for Rs.8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as litigation expenses.

4. The opposite parties had entered appearance and filed a written version with the following contentions:

The opposite parties would admit that on 16.01.2015 the vehicle of the complainant was brought to the workshop. The defects to be rectified were noted in the job card and on 20.01.2015 it was assured to be returned. Accordingly, the vehicle was returned to the complainant on 20.01.2015. The complainant took back the vehicle as he was convinced that the defects