DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 31st day of July 2023.
Filed on: 23/06/2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 315/2022
COMPLAINANT
Godin Antony, S/o. Godfer P.A., Pulikkal House, Vaduthala, Kothery Road, Pin-682023
(Rep. by Adv. K.R. Vinod, 1st Floor, Velambath Building, Kombara Junction, Kochi 682018)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Aggarwal Car Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Officer No.3, Maruti Gate No.2, Near Shani Mandir, Old Delhi-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122001.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased a BMW 525 series from Genex Cars, New Delhi, for starting a business of selling used luxurious cars. Due to health issues, the complainant requested the car be transported to his location in Kochi. The opposite party, a car carriage company, assured the complainant that they would take care of the car during transportation and promised delivery within 12 days. The complainant entrusted the car to the opposite party and paid Rs. 33,000 for transportation expenses.
However, the car was delivered after 26 days in a severely damaged condition, with broken bumpers, punctured tires, a non-functional battery, and an engine that wouldn't start. The interior was also in a terrible state due to dirt and dust. The opposite party denied responsibility for the damages, and the car dealer from whom the complainant purchased the car also refused to cover the damages. The complainant contacted the car carriage company for compensation, but they did not respond.
The complainant estimated the repair cost at Rs. 2,65,560 and seeks reimbursement for this amount, along interest from the date of delivery. Additionally, the complainant demands Rs. 1,00,000 as the cost of litigation, Rs. 50,000 for negligent handling of the goods, and another Rs. 50,000 for the mental agony and pain caused by the incident. The complaint has been filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, within the prescribed period, and the complainant requests the commission to grant the aforementioned reliefs.
2) Notice
Notice sent by the commission to the opposite party via the postal department returned with the reason "door locked."
3) Evidence
The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit, but he presented three documents before the commission.
1: Photographs depicting the damages caused to the car.
2: Copy of the acknowledgment sent by the opposite party to the complainant.
3: The original service estimate is given to the complainant from M Star Motors for repairing his car.
4) The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The commission issued a notice to the complainant on 19-04-23, asking the complainant to furnish the correct address of the opposite party. However, the complainant appeared before the commission on 19.04.23 and requested more time to furnish the correct address of the opposite party. The commission granted this request and adjourned the case as a last chance for the complainant to provide the correct address of the opposite party.
Despite the opportunity given, the complainant neither furnish the correct address of the opposite party nor appeared before the commission thereafter. Several chances were provided to the complainant to proceed with the case, but they have shown no interest in doing so.
Due to the complainant's persistent absence and lack of cooperation, the commission has no choice but to dispose of the complaint based on the available evidence. Consequently, the commission proceeds with the disposal of the complaint on its merits.
Top of Form
The legal maxim "vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt" (The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep.) is highly significant in consumer cases. It stresses the importance of being proactive and diligent in protecting one's rights and interests in legal matters. By actively safeguarding their rights, individuals are more likely to receive legal support compared to those who neglect their responsibilities. In consumer cases, this maxim emphasizes the need for consumers to be vigilant and attentive when facing potential legal issues, ensuring they protect their rights as buyers. However, in this specific case, obtaining the correct address of the opposite party is of utmost importance for further proceedings. However, it is noted that the complainant failed to provide the correct address of the opposite party.
After careful consideration, the above issues {(i) to iii)} have been found to be unfavorable to the complainant. The case presented by the complainant is considered to be without merit. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission reached the decision to dismiss the complaint. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 31st day of July 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 315/2022
Order Date: 31/07/2023
