. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD consumer case(CC) No. C.C.40/07
K.K.Kuriyan
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Abdulla.A.P. A.V.Sreedharan
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. K.K.Kuriyan
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Abdulla.A.P. 2. A.V.Sreedharan
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of filing:06-06-07 Date of order :04-07-08 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.No.40/07 Dated this, the 4th day of July 2008 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER K.K.Kuriyan, S/o.Kuriyan, Thayyannur Village, Kalichanadukkam.Po, } Complainant Kasaragod.Dist. 1. Abdulla.A.P.(Deceased), S/o.Kutti Muhammed, K.P. House, } Opposite parties Po.Elambachi., Kasaragod.Dist. 2. A.V. Sreedharan, S/o.Kanna Poduval, Muthiyalam, Po.Korom, Thaliparamba Taluk. O R D E R SRI. K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The facts of the case which are relevant to decide the case is that the complainant Kuriyan purchased a Maruti Omni Car bearing Reg.No.KL-14/E 8534 from Opposite party No.2 A.V.Sreedharan who is a dealer of second hand vehicles. The Opposite party No.1 Abdulla A.P. was the RC owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. According to Kuriyan at the time of transaction Sreedharan made him believe that the vehicle can be plied using both petrol and gas as fuel. But he could later realise that the gas kit attached to the vehicle was damaged and he rectified the defects by spending Rs.63,00/- towards the new gas kit and Rs.3870/- towards the engine repair charges. Hence this complaint claiming the above amount with Rs.5000/- as compensation . 2. Notice to both parties issued. But notice issued to Opposite party No.1 Abdulla returned un served stating the reason addressee expired. Sreedharan entered appearance and filed version refuting the allegations of Kuriyan. As per the petitions filed by Kuriyan, the deceased Abdulla was deleted from party array. 3. According to Sreedharan he has purchased the disputed vehicle from one Shahul Hameed and not from Abdulla, in whose name the RC was existing. The vehicle was purchased by Kuriyan after a test drive both in gas and petrol. After satisfaction Kuriyan paid Rs.5000/- as advance. The next day the vehicle was taken by Kuriyan again for a test drive with 3 people. At the time of transaction the vehicle was free from defects. Hence there is no unfair trade practice on his part and he prays for a dismissal of complaint. 4. Kuriyan examined as PW1 and Exta.A1 to A3(a) marked on his side. Sreedharan tendered evidence as RW1. 5. According to Kuriyan he purchased the vehicle on the assurance of Sreedharan that the vehicle is in good condition, but he could later realise that the vehicle is not running in gas since the gas kit was damaged at the time of the deal it self. But Sreedharan contends that Kuriyan with others conducted test drive both using gas and petrol as fuel. But Kuriyan testified that the vehicle never tested in gas and after filling gas it was found to be not functioning. 6. The Exts produced shows that on 10-5-07 i.e. after 3 days of purchase it self Kuriyan taken the vehicle for repair which he purchased from Sreedharan for a reasonable amount Rs.1,85,000/- . No common man in ordinary circumstances will purchase a vehicle for a reasonable market value which is having major defects like the damage to gas kit etc. Therefore the only inference possible is that Kuriyan was subjected to unfair trade practice by Sreedharan. Therefore the argument of Kuriyan that there is a practice in vogue among the used car dealers to seduce the potential buyers falsely representing the condition of the vehicle as good, appears to be acceptable. Hence Sreedharan has committed unfair trade practice. 7. The claim of Kuriyan is Rs.15170/- which includes the cost of gas kit, the vehicle repair charges and compensation. But as alleged by Kuriyan there is nothing to show that the repair works was necessitated due to the mixing of gas with petrol. Sreedharan deposed that the purchase value of a gas cylinder kit is only Rs.3300/- . Therefore Sreedharan is liable to pay at least this amount to Kuriyan. Therefore we allow the complaint in part and Sreedharan (Opposite party No.2) is directed to pay Rs.3,300/- to Kuriyan (complainant) along with a cost of Rs.1000/-. Time for compliance of this order is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Photo copy of RC A2.Copy of estimate. A3. Cash Memo A3(a) Cash Memo PW1. K.K.Kuriyan DW1. A.V. Sreedharan Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
