Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/37/2014

Antony Samy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arasu Autos - Opp.Party(s)

L. Natarajan

10 Feb 2015

ORDER

   Date of Filing      : 17.09.2014

                                                                                         Date of Disposal:  10.02.2015

           

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., …. MEMBER I

                   Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMBER II

 

CC. No.37/2014

 

DECIDED ON THIS   10^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015.

 

Antony samy

S/o Joseph

3/182, Kurinji Village,

Nirthanamangalam Post,

Nagapattinam Taluk.                                   … Complainant

                                                                                      

                                                                /versus/

 

Arasu Autos,

Near Vijayalakshmi Theater,

V.O.C. Street, Nagapattinam Town,

 Nagapattinam Taluk & District.                 … Opposite party

 

 

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 03.02.2015, on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.S.Nadarajan, Counsel for the complainant, the opposite party originally represented by Thiru.S.R.Ayyappan, Advocate and subsequently having been set exparte,  having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum passed the following

ORDER

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

                        2. The   gist  of the  complaint  filed  by  the  complainant  is  that  the complainant  approached  the  opposite  party  for  purchase  of  a  two  wheeler  and submitted his photo, Family Card, Election Identity Card and sent all the documents for loan arrangements for the purchase of the said vehicle and paid Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) towards advance on 09.12.2013, the cost of that vehicle was fixed at Rs.80,000/- and the opposite party undertook to make loan arrangement also for the purchase of the vehicle.  But the opposite party failed to make loan arrangement and also to take steps for registration of the vehicle in time. As there was no loan arrangement made by the opposite party, the complainant entrusted back the vehicle to the opposite party on 23.06.2014 and obtained a letter from the opposite party in evidence there of.   Even thereafter the opposite party did not take steps to get the vehicle registered and delivered to the complainant and hence the complainant sent a notice through his lawyer to the opposite party on 21.08.2014. The opposite party having received the notice neither sent any reply nor complied with the demand of the complainant.  The complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite party either to deliver the vehicle after arranging for the finance and registration of the vehicle or return the advance amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the 09.12.2013 onwards, till the date of payment and to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to him along with  Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of this litigation and to grant such and other reliefs as this Forum would deem fit.

                        3. The gist of the written version filed by the opposite party is that the opposite party is only dealing with the sales and service of the Bajaj Two Wheelers and it has nothing to do with the finance arrangement to be made by the complainant.  The complainant alone has to make sue motu arrangement for getting loan from any finance corporation. The vehicle was delivered to him on getting the advance payment of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only). But the complainant having taken delivery of the vehicle had used it and did not take steps to pay the amount by having finance arrangements from Finance Corporation, but entrusted the vehicle with the opposite party on 23.06.2014 and went away promising to get return of the vehicle after making arrangement with the finance corporation to pay the amount and accordingly a letter was given to the complainant.  But subsequently the complainant had never returned to the opposite party to pay the balance of the sale price and get back the vehicle. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party itself.  The complainant had failed to pay the balance of the sale price and get redelivery of the vehicle in spite of his having already used it for 194 days.  If it all he is entitled to get back the advance amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) only after deducting the  charges for the depreciation of the vehicle for having used it for 194 days.  The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed as against the opposite party.              

4. The complainant has filed his proof affidavit in support of his claim and 4 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A4 and has submitted his written arguments also. The opposite party though filed the written version has failed to file his proof affidavit in support of his defence despite several adjournments granted and hence he was set exparte on 13.01.2015.

5.  Points for consideration:-

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the  opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

6. Point 1: The complainant has filed Exhibit A1, the receipt for payment of Rs.20,000/- to the opposite party towards advance for the purchase of the  two wheeler, Exhibit A2, the letter given by the opposite party for getting back the two wheeler sold to the complainant undertaking to return the vehicle after arrangement of finance and registration of it, Exhibit A3, the office copy of the notice sent by the complainant through his lawyer to the opposite party and Exhibit A4, the postal acknowledgment card received by the opposite party.

                        7. The complainant having taken delivery of the two wheeler on payment of Rs.20,000/- towards advance had used it. For some time, but as the opposite party had not come forward to get it registered, he had returned it back to the opposite party, who has acknowledged the receipt of the sale under Exhibit A2.  The perusal of the Exhibit A2, would go to show that they had undertaken to redeliver the vehicle after making arrangement for finance and registration of the vehicle within the period of 4 days or to return back the advance amount.  Even for the notice sent by the complainant under Exhibit A3, the opposite party had not even chosen to send the reply nor made any steps to arrange for the finance and registration of the vehicle.  Therefore it is sheer deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

                        8. Point 2:  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party is directed to return the advance amount sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 09.12.2013, till the date of payment and to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of this complaint to the complainant.  The opposite party is directed to repay the said advance amount within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which he shall pay an additional amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till date of realisation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant, owing to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this  10^th  day of  February 2015.

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant

 

Ex/A1.Dt.09.12.2013: The Xerox copy of the receipt for payment of Rs.20,000/- given by

    the opposite party to the complainant.

 Ex/A2.Dt.23.06.2014: The Xerox copy of the letter given by the opposite party to the

     complainant.

Ex/A3.Dt.21.08.2014: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s counsel

    to the opposite party.

Ex/A4.Dt.23.08.2014: The Xerox copy of the postal acknowledgment card received by

    the opposite party.

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.37/ 2014

Order Dt.:10.02.2015.