AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD Vs. K.V.V.S.N. VARA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen against the order dated 18.01.2008 passed in C. C. 392/2007 by the District Forum I, Visakhapatnam, where under, the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs.19,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.1000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.1000/-. The impugned order is assailed as erroneous both on question of fact and law.

(2.) The facts of the case disclose that the complainant purchased LMV Maxi Cab, commander Jeep from the opposite party for earning his livelihood by taxi business. The said vehicle met with an accident. So it was shifted to the opposite partys work shop on 07.03.2003 for repairing it. The opposite party issued an estimation for repairing the vehicle. After some time, when the complainant went to take delivery of the vehicle, he was informed that except the body, all the parts of the car were stolen and he was asked to come later as the stolen parts could be replaced with a new one. Subsequently, the opposite party informed that the parts of the vehicle which were stolen were traced out by police and that police had registered a case. An application was submitted before the Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for taking return of the parts from the custody of the Court. The opposite party after attending to the repairs did not give proper answers. The complainant was eking out his livelihood by running the it as and thereby he sustained loss to a tune of Rs.70,000/-. The complainant purchased the vehicle with the help of financier and he was supposed to pay monthly instalments on the loan borrowed. A registered notice dated 01.06.2003 was sent to the opposite parties for which he sent reply with false allegations.

(3.) Denying the allegations for the liability to pay compensation the opposite party filed its version admitting that the vehicle was purchased and registered in the name of the complainant. It is stated that since the said vehicle met with an accident it was brought to its work shop for effecting repairs but the parts of the vehicle were stolen. So a police complaint was lodged and that the police has traced out some of the parts. The opposite party had carried out the repairs of the vehicle and delivered it to the complainant. It is denied that the complainant had sustained loss of Rs.70,000/- towards his earnings and this claim is made to make unlawful gain. Immediately, after taking delivery of the spare parts from the Court, repairs were effected without any further delay.