N S RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STAR ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE propriety and sustainability of the order passed by the CDRF, Kannur in O. P.258/00 is sought to be challenged by filing this appeal by the complainant who approached the Forum below for redressal of his grievance alleging that the newly purchased main shaft for the use of Mahindra Jeep belonging to him (jeep bearing No. KL -10f/6839) was entrusted with the opposite party/2nd respondent herein for doing some lathe work on 18.5.2000 and the lathe work was done in a negligent manner causing breaking of the head of the top portion of the shaft thereby rendering it unfit to be used. Further case pleaded by the complainant was that the opposite party turned a deaf ear to the demand made by the complainant/appellant for purchasing a new shaft under some pretext. The jeep was plying as a taxi at Manakkadavu town fetching a daily income of Rs.750/ -. To avoid huge loss he had purchased a new shaft and the new shaft was purchased by him on account of the fact that the opposite party had not purchased new shaft. Lathe work was got done by him and that shaft was fitted to the jeep. Price of the shaft purchased by him was Rs.1,970/ -. Though he sent a Lawyer notice demanding the price of the new shaft, the opposite party evaded that notice. He had suffered a loss of Rs.1,970/ - by purchasing new shaft again (the price of the new shaft purchased ). For sending legal notice he spent Rs.250/ - and Rs.250/ - was the taxi fare paid by him for meeting the opposite party. He suffered mental agony and he claimed Rs.1,000/ - by way of compensation of the mental agony suffered. Total amount claimed by him from the respondent was Rs.3,470/ -.

(2.) THE claim made by the complainant was resisted by the managing partner of the second opposite party by filing a version disputing all the aforesaid allegations made in the complaint. It was contended by him in the version that complainant was not a consumer and the opposite party has not rendered any service to the complainant. Opposite party had not received any consideration from the complainant. The complainant had not entrusted the main shaft to the opposite party for lathe work. The opposite party establishment has been manufacturing rubber rolling machines and doing lathe work. The establishment is entrusted with work by the owners of the workshops. On 18.5.2000 one Kunjappan, the owner of a workshop entrusted a main shaft for rectifying the defects (vibration of 2nd and 3rd gears of the main shaft) and as per his direction the opposite party establishment set the ply of the 2nd and 3rd gears of the main shaft. It made two small sleeves and sleeves also were set. Later gear was fitted to the main shaft. After completion of work the main shaft was examined by Kunjappan and he expressed satisfaction and got back the main shaft. No lathe work used to be done for a new main shaft. It was contended that no documentary evidence was produced by complainant to prove that the main shaft entrusted by Kunjappan belonged to the complainant. It was also contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and it had not done any lathe work on the main shaft. It was the case of the opposite party that if any damage was caused to the main shaft it was either due to the manufacturing defect or due to the defect in fitting the main shaft in the vehicle. The receipt of Lawyer notice was not deliberately evaded. That notice was addressed to the manager and there was no Manager for the establishment.

(3.) CONTENTION is raised in the version that opposite party establishment is a partnership firm. Complainant filed application to implead Star Engineering Industries, Thaliparamba as supplementary 2nd opposite party and that application was allowed.