O R D E R
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member - II):
The complainant approached this Forum for getting relief against the opposite parties.
2. Brief facts of this complaint is as follows: The complainant is running a textile shop in the name “Anti – Uncle” at Pathanamthitta for earnings of his livelihood. The 1st opposite party is the proprietor of the “Aztec – India” and he is engaged in sales and service of computer and accessories. The 2nd opposite party is the authorized agent of the 1st opposite party. On 04.02.2010, the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the 3rd opposite party’s bank vide loan A/c No. 42/09-10 for purchase of a computer from the 1st opposite party for his textile shop. On the same day, the 3rd opposite party bank transferred the amount of Rs.25,000/- to the 1st opposite party’s bank account. After receiving the said amount, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties intimated the complainant that the computer will be supplied within one month. But they have not supplied the computer. Though, repeated demands were made by the complainant for supplying the computer they did not care either to supply the computer or to return the amount. Complainant’s father also took a loan from the 3rd opposite party’s bank for purchasing the computer from the 1st opposite party.
3. As per the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement the complainant had paid the entire loan amount with interest of Rs.46,756/- on 31.03.2015. But the 1st and 2nd opposite party were not supplied computer to the complainant. The complainant sustained huge loss of earning. Hence the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of Rs.46,756/- the amount remitted to the 3rd opposite party bank along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost.
4. In this case the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are exparte.
5. The 3rd opposite party appeared before this Forum and filed a version with the following main contentions: 3rd opposite party admitted the loan transaction and the closing of the loan account by the complainant. The complainant has not sustained any loss or damage so that the complainant is not entitled to recover any amount from the 3rd opposite party. No deficiency in service has been committed by the 3rd opposite party and they are not liable for any compensation. Hence 3rd opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the opposite party, the only point to be considered is, whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts.A1 and A2. Though the 3rd opposite party filed their version they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour and not even cross-examined PW1, in spite of chances given to them. After closing of evidence, the complainant was heard and opposite parties were not present.
8. The point:- The complainant’s allegation is that he had availed a loan from the 3rd opposite party. On 04.02.2010 he took a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from 3rd opposite party Bank for the purchase of a computer for his textile shop. The 3rd opposite party bank transferred the amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the 1st opposite party’s bank account. But the 1st and 2nd opposite party did not supply the computer. Matter was informed to the opposite parties several times. But they have not turned up. The above said act of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
9. In order to prove the allegations, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 2 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and Ext.A2. Ext.A1 is the invoice dated 07.01.2010 issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the statement of Hire Purchase Loan Personal Ledger from 04.02.2010 to 06.08.2015 in the name of the complainant issued from the 3rd opposite party bank Pathanamthitta showing the payment of loan to the 3rd opposite party.
10. On the other hand, the contention of the 3rd opposite party is that the suit is not maintainable before the Forum. Complainant availed a loan from the opposite party and there after he paid the amount. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the 3rd opposite party as alleged by the complainant.
11. Though 3rd opposite party raised such a contention in their version they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour for substantiating his contentions. They have not even cross examined PW1.
12. In this case, though the 3rd opposite party filed their version they have not turned up for cross-examining PW1 or they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. The complainant has not adduced any evidence against the 3rd opposite party. Therefore, we find that 3rd opposite party is not liable to the complainant.
13. The complainants contention is that, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties did not supply the computer. Since 1st and 2nd opposite parties are exparte. Therefore, we have gone through the evidence adduced by the complainant and we found that there is no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant against the opposite party. Thus the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged. Therefore, we find that the above said act of the 1st opposite party that is non–supply of the computer is an illegal act and unfair trade practice and is a clear deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are liable for the same. Therefore, this complaint is allowable.
14. However from the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen that all the troubles of the complainant is due to non disclosure of the real facts by the 2nd opposite party. She canvassed the complainant for her own benefits which put the computer to these troubles. So the 2nd opposite party is also liable to the complainant.
15. In the result, the complaint is allowed thereby the 1st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 46,756/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand seven hundred and fifty six only) with 10% interest from the date of filing of this complaint as per Ext.A2 Hire Purchase Loan, Personal Ledger along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The 2nd opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of non–compliance of this order by the opposite party, the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount ordered here in above from the concerned opposite party with 12% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of January 2016.
(Sd/-)
Sheela Jacob,
(Member - II)
Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Y. Feroz Mohammed
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of the letter dated 07.01.2010 issued by the 1st opposite party
to the complainant.
A2 : Statement of Hire Purchase Loan Personal Ledger from 04.02.2010 to
06.08.2015 in the name of the complainant
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Firoz Muhammed, Aysha Manzil, Pathanamthitta P.O,
P.I.N – 689 645.
(2) Aztec – India, Palm Shade, 3 Door No. 4-C, Edappally P.O,
Cochin - 682 024.
(3) C.R Raji, Chirakkara Bhavan, Mundukottackal P.O,
Pathanamthitta Dist., P.I.N – 689 645.
(4) Secretary, Pathanamthitta Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Q-363, Pathanamthitta P.O - 689 645.
(5) The Stock File.
