BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.851 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.358 OF 2009 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD
Between:
Sri P.Rajendra Prasad S/o P.Ramakotaiah Prasad
Aged about 53 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o 4-105/4/A,
Turkayamjal, Sagar Road, Hayat Nagar, Hyderabad AP-035
1. M/s Acer Motors Pvt Ltd.,
rep. by its MD Major P.T.Chowdary
Regd. Off: Moti Valley, Thirumalgerry
Secunderabad
2. Maruthi Suzuki India Limited
South Regional Off: At Chamber Nos.101 & 102
D.no.3-6-363 & 3-6-1/1, 1st Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad
3. GMAC Financial Services,
rep. by its authorized representative
Branch off: #301, First Floor, Olbee Center
6-3-1090/A/24, Somajiguda, Rajbhavan Road
Hyderabad.
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY THE EIGTH
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
1.
2. `2 lakh through D.D. drawn on Canara Bank Sainikpuri Branch drawn in favour of the opposite party no.1.
3. `2,87,850/- through demand draft dated 5.2.2008 drawn in favour of opposite party no.1. `2,87,850/- to the opposite party no.1.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16. `2,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Sainikpuri Branch in favour of the first opposite party. `2 lakh to the opposite party no.1.
17. `2 lakh, the complainant availed loan of`2,87,500/- from the third opposite party towards balance sale consideration. `2,87,850/- was sanctioned as loan by the third opposite party and it was paid to the first opposite party through DD bearing No.219609 dated 5.2.2008.
That the second of you recommended to avail vehicle loan facility from GMAC Financial Services for payment of balance consideration.
18. `4,87,850/- was paid by the complainant to the first opposite party.
19.
20.
21. `.2,87,850/- for purchase of Maruti Swift VDi. `2,87,850/- issued by the third opposite party was drawn on in favour of the first opposite party.
22.
23.
24.
25.
“Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of Rupees fifteen crores and for an additional sum of Rupees sixty lakhs for covering the cost of travelling and other expenses incurred by the Appellant, it is obvious that very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses. It is, therefore, in any event, not an appropriate case to be heard and dispose of in a summary fashion.
26.
27. `4,87,850/- from the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
28. `4,87,850/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment together with costs of`3,000/-.
KMK*
