Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/325/2015

K. Saravanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anand Automobiles, The Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

B.R. Dillikumar

13 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH     :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R. VENKATESAPERUMAL            :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 325 of 2015

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.49 of 2011 dated 09.04.2014 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Chengalpattu.

 

Wednesday, the 13^th day of April 2022

 

K. Saravanan

S/o. A. Krishnan

#F2 – B1 Police Quarters

Perumal Street

Kancheepuram.                                          .. Appellant/ Complainant

 

 

- Vs –

 

The Managing Director

Anand Automobiles

#123, Sengaluneer Odai Street

Kancheepuram                                            .. Respondent/ Opposite Party

   

    Counsel for Appellant /Complainant              : M/s. B.R. Dillikumar

    Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party  : Served, called Absent

 

                                                                                                       

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 13.04.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT  [Open Court]

1.     This appeal has been filed by the Complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, in C.C. No.49 of 2011, dismissing the complaint filed by the Appellant herein. 

 

2.  The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that on 22.06.2011 when the complainant approached the opposite party show room for purchase of Splendor Plus Spokes, he was informed that the price of the vehicle is Rs.47,450/-.  On 01.07.2011, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5000/- as advance.  The opposite party asked him to wait for 10-15 days to take delivery of the vehicle.  On 25.07.2011, the opposite party called the complainant over phone and asked him to come and pay the balance amount and take delivery of the vehicle.  When the complainant went to the show room, with the balance amount of Rs.43,200/-, the opposite party informed the complainant that he has to pay Rs.49,000/-.  When the complainant was ready to pay the overwriting cost of Rs.49,000/-, the opposite party asked him to pay another sum of Rs.1250/- towards extra-fittings charges.  When the complainant questioned about this, the opposite party had stated that only on payment of the cost for extra fittings, they would deliver the vehicle.  That apart, the opposite party insisted the complainant to buy a helmet from their show room.  Therefore, the complainant could not take delivery of the vehicle on that date.  On 26.07.2011, the complainant sent a notice to the opposite party asking for delivery of the vehicle stating that he is willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.44,000/-.  But the opposite party wantonly has not delivered the vehicle.  Thus, due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking the following directions to the opposite party: 

 

1. To receive the balance amount of Rs.43,200/- and deliver the vehicle to the complainant;
2. to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, inconvenience and hardship; and
3. to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as cost of the complaint.

 

3.  The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party, filing a written version stating that it is false to state that the opposite party asked the complainant to pay Rs.1250/- for extra fittings charges to deliver the vehicle.   Similarly, they have not compelled the complainant to purchase a helmet from their showroom.  In fact, on the particular date of delivery the complainant did not turn up to take delivery of the vehicle.  Therefore, several phone calls were made to the complainant asking him to come and take delivery of the vehicle.  But, the complainant did not turn up.  A notice dated 26.07.2011, with false allegations and without any valid proof was received by the opposite party.  On receipt of the said notice, the opposite party returned the advance amount of Rs.5000/- and duly informed to the complainant about the status of delivery.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.   In order to prove the case, the complainant along with proof affidavit has filed 11 documents, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A11.  On the side of the opposite party, proof affidavit alone was filed and no documents were marked.

 

5.  The District Forum, after analyzing the entire evidence on records, has come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.

 

6.  Heard the submissions of the counsel for the appellant/ complainant and perused the material on records.  No representation for the respondent/opposite party.

 

7.  The complaint has been filed with vague and bald allegations.  No proper ground has been made out to establish deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party.  Moreover, from perusal of the records we find that the complainant has paid only a sum of Rs.5000/- as advance to purchase the two wheeler, Splendor Plus Spokes.  He has not paid the entire cost of the vehicle.  The said advance amount of Rs.5000/- has also been returned by the opposite party.  Under such circumstances, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  In fact, it is only a vexatious complaint.  Though the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost, by taking lenient view, we refrain to do so.

 

8.   In the result, the Appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu made in C.C. No.49 of 2011 dated 09.04.2014.  There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April /2022