K.R.UDAYABHANU, J. - (1.)The appellant is the complainant in CC.165/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The complaint stands dismissed.
(2.)It is the case of the complainant that on 2/5/2007 he had entrusted the Tata Indigo car owned by him with the opposite party, workshop owner for changing the oil. When he returned for taking the vehicle at about 1.pm on the same day the opposite party told him that the timing belt to be immediately changed failing which the vehicle will develop serious complications and that a sum around Rs.30,000/- would have to be spent for repairs in the above eventuality. He agreed to replace the timing belt and return the vehicle by about 5 pm on the same day. When he returned at 5 pm he was told that the head gasket, water pump and connecting rod also should be replaced. As he had to go to Paravur he availed a taxi for the same. On 8/5/2007 he purchased the materials as directed by the opposite party. On 11/5/2007 the vehicle was returned to him. He was also given a bill for Rs.5620/- for cost of repairs. He wanted to examine the bill in detail and hence signed in the bill and agreed to pay the amount later. On the same day on the way to Thrissur after running about 50 Kms, the vehicle developed problems. He showed the vehicle at a workshop at Ollur, near Thrissur. The workshop man told him that there are serious mechanical problems to the vehicle and the vehicle was kept at the workshop. Later he entrusted the vehicle at Tata Authorised Service Centre at Irinjalakkuda. He had to incur a sum of Rs.36,675.00 for repair of the vehicle at the authorized service centre. It is alleged that the opposite party was experimenting with the vehicle although he had entrusted the vehicle only for oil changing. The opposite party did not effect the repairs properly. He had to incur the repair cost of Rs.36,675.00 only on account of the defects in the repairs executed by the opposite party. He filed a complaint before the DYSP, Kattappana. As a counter blast, the opposite party filed a complaint before the Munsiff Court, Kattappana against the complainant.
(3.)On the other hand, the opposite party had filed version contending that the vehicle was entrusted to him not for oil change but on the complaint that the vehicle was getting over heated after running about 15 to 20 Kms and get stopped automatically. Only after the engine cools down, the vehicle can be restarted and again the over heating problem recurred. The mechanic who examined the vehicle found that there is complaint in the engine head and the cooling process is not working and that there is a defect to the connecting rod bearing and that it is not getting released. The mechanic also told that the timing belt, head gasket, oil pipe to the turbo should be replaced and the crank should be polished from the lathe and the head also should be levelled at the lathe and the tension adjuster should be replaced. According to the opposite party, the Maruthi car owned by him was given to the complainant as he had to go to Thrissur urgently. Subsequently on 9/5/2007 the complainant provided the materials required for the repairs. But the gasket connector rod bearing etc was substandard. According to him the complainant told him that the original spares are very costly and that he intended to sell the vehicle immediately and that the repair need to done using the above materials. It was also told that the water pump was omitted to be taken, although he had purchased the same and agreed to provide the same subsequently. According to the opposite party he repaired the vehicle using the spares provided by the complainant. As the oil pipe to the turbo was not available as suggested by the complainant an ordinary pipe was purchased and the same was connected by using M seal. The complainant was also given 6 litres of oil if on the way oil leak occurs. The cost of the above oil has also been billed. The opposite party had also told that the spring of the pump is not working and the alternator belt is found broken and it is possible that the engine will be stuck on the way. The complainant told him that the vehicle will be kept at his house and at the time of the payment of the repairing charges bill the other articles would also be provided for replacing. According to him the existing problems of the vehicle has been mentioned in the repair bill itself and the same has been endorsed by the complainant. As the complainant happened to be closely known to the opposite party he released the vehicle without receiving the repair charges. The rest of the allegations are denied. He has filed a Civil Suit before Munsiff Court, Kattappana for getting the payment of Rs.5620/-, the repair charges.