KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

            APPEAL NO:725/2004

                                 JUDGMENT DATED:30-09-2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

1.      Surya Traders rep. by its Proprietor,

T.Narayanankutty, XL 7567, First floor,  

Y.M.C.A, Chittoor Road, Cochin-35.

                                                                   : APPELLANTS

2.      Manager of Surya Traders (Finance Point),

29/902 A, Bypass Road, Meenchanda,

P.O.Arts College, Kozhikkode.

(By Adv.Sri.P.Babukumar)

          Vs.

1.      Smt.A.thankamoni Sivadas,

W/o Sivadasan Nair,

Sebeesh Nivas, Thenjippalam.P.O.

(By Adv:Sri.A.Viswanathan)

                                                                   : RESPONDENTS

2.      P.Gopalakrishnan, Mannath Veedu,

Vattapparambil, Narikkunni.P.O,

Kozhikode.

(By Adv:Sri.K.A.Abdul Salam)

                                                  JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2 in OP.34/99 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to the  complainant and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.500/- with interest at 12% from the date of complaint.

2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant and her husband had exchanged the Contessa Car in the name of the complainant with a diesel Ambassador Car through the 2^nd opposite party the branch of the 1^st opposite party dealing in 2^nd hand cars.  It was the Manager of the 2^nd opposite party who arranged the same.  The Contessa Car was valued at Rs.85,000/- and the Diesel Ambassador Car at Rs.1,40,000/-.  The Complainant paid the balance due towards the Ambasador Car ie Rs.55,000/- and also dealers commission of Rs.2000/-.  The papers of the Ambassador Car were not handed over and it was agreed that the same will be given to the complainant within one week and an agreement was executed in this regard by the 2^nd opposite party on behalf of the 1^st opposite party on 22/1/1998.  Subsequently on 15/5/1998 the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties came to the complainant and wanted to take back the Ambassador Car mentioning that there are certain complications with respect to the papers of above vehicle and agreed to replace the same with another Ambassador Car of the same model or superior model within one week.  An agreement dated:15/5/1998 was executed by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  Thereafter the vehicle was not supplied.  The notices sent to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties were returned unclaimed.  The complainant has claimed altogether a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- ie Rs.1,40,000/- the amount due and Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

3. The 3^rd opposite party stood exparte.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed version denying that the person who executed the agreement as the Manager of the 2^nd opposite party was not in the service of the 1^st opposite party and that it is one Thankappan who is the Manager at Calicut.  They have denied any agreement etc with the complainant and has also denied any liability.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, RW1 and Exts.P1 to P12.  Ext.P7 to P12 was marked after remand by the State Commission in appeal.

5. The Forum had first as per order dated:11/6/1999 directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- to the complainant with interest at 15% from the date of complaint and a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards cost.  The case was remitted back on the basis of the contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2/appellants that  they could not adduce proper evidence in the Forum below and that there are records to show that the complainant had on a prior date sold the Contessa car to one Rabeka.  On 20/1/1998 they had also produced the registration particulars with respect to the above vehicle (later marked as Ext.P7).  After remand the Forum called for details from the RTO concerned.  Ext.P7 was produced by the RTO. Thereafter the complainant applied calling for the details of the above sale and seeking the production of the same from the office of the RTO ie the fee register and application register pertaining to the transfer entry with respect of the above car.  In response Ext.P11, details were furnished by the RTO mentioning that such details are not seen in the records at his office.  It is also mentioned that on verification of the cash book of the relevant period no entry regarding the payment of fee for the transfer of ownership could be seen.  Summons was also issued to Rabeka, W/o Samuel (late), Thadamnilam Paramba, Karuvassery.P.O, Kozhikkode.  The summons was returned mentioning that there is no such addressee.  Further the opposite parties did not adduce any contra evidence before the Forum after remand.  Hence the Forum has concluded that the case set up by the opposite parties is absolutely false.

6. The case set up in the appeal is that the Forum had directed the opposite parties that they need not appear before the Forum only after receipt of notice as the case records have not been received from the State Commission.  Subsequently no notice was received from the Forum only.  We find that the matter is of the year 1999.   The complaint is seen filed on 20/1/1999. It would be totally inappropriate to further remand the case after a lapse of 10 years.  The opposite parties ought to have properly followed up the matter.  Further on a perusal of the order of the Forum it appears that the order of the Forum did not suffer from any infirmity.  The Forum in the first order itself has pointed out that the opposite parties have not produced any documents that would show as to who was the then Manager of the Calicut branch.  Further Ext.P6 business  card of the 2^nd opposite party, Mr.C. Purushothaman Pillai indicated that he who executed Ext.P1 and P2 agreements was the then Manager.    As point out by the Forum the opposite party would be having documents that would show as to who was the Manager of the Calicut branch at the relevant time.  There is no case that Ext.P6 has been fabricated by the complainant.   Further the registered notice sent to the 1^st opposite party was not replied to.  As already noted above the case of the opposite parties that the complainant had sold the Contessa car to one Rabeka on a previous date stands totally disproved.  In the circumstances we find that there is no reason at all to interfere in the order of the Forum.  Hence the appeal is dismissed.

The office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

VL.