KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.865/12
JUDGMENT DATED 09/01/2014
(Against the order in OP No.98/2005 on the file of CDRF, Trissur, dated 30.07.2012)
PRESENT
SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
1. The Branch Manager,
The Dhanalekshmi Bank,
Perunna, Changanassery.
2. The Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd., APPELLANTS
Head Office, Chanalekshmi
Bank Building, Pukunnam,
Trissur.
R/by its Managing Director.
(By Adv.Sri. B. Madhukumar & S.Premkumar)
V/s.
Balasubramanian, S/o. Chathan,
Kaparathuparambil House, RESPONDENT
Desamangalam P.O., Trissur.
(By Adv. Sri. S. Pradeep Kumar)
JUDGMENT
SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS: MEMBER
This is an appeal against the order dated 30/07/2012 in CC No.98/05 filed on 28/01/2005 passed by the Learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the Appellants/Respondents at the Lower Forum are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complainant and time for compliance two months from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise the amount shall carry 12% interest till the date of realization.
2. Brief facts are that the Respondent participated at an auction conducted appellants to which a public notice for inviting bid were advertised in a newspaper for auction of autorikshaw. On 05/072004 the respondent made his bid for the autorikshaw bearing Reg. No.KL8J4992 with respondents and 1st appellant onfirming the auction and on receiving the amount handed over the vehicle to respondent. However respondents never received the original documents from the appellants to which the respondent had attempted to procure new registration documents from the RTO, where he could not receive the same because the appellants had not changed the ownership name from the actual owner to the appellant. The actual owner was one Mr.K.V.Varghese who bought the vehicle under a hire/purchase loan from the bank and due to default, the vehicle was confiscated by the bank in accordance to their terms and conditions of the agreement. In respondent’s version is that the appellants had confirmed earlier that all documents where available with the bank, however to which the appellants have opposed stating they never bad confirmed the same. Parties led evidence in support of their csontention and after hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the Learned District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order.
3. We perused the District Forum award, other records and head the parties and are of the opinion that the said order was just and proper. In this case the respondent had fulfilled his obligations to the fullest and from documents it is evident that he had even made efforts for obtaining the same from the RTO. There is no reason not to believe there was deficiency in service on part of the appellants. The appellants even prior to auction had the responsibility to make proper the required registration documents of the vehicles used for auction. The appellants had a duty to properly guide such bid winners from the auction in getting their clear and unencumbered documents for their usage.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considerd view that there is no merit in the present appeal, as such, the order of the Learned Forum Below does not require any intereference, and consequently the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
SANTHAMMA THOMAS: MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
A. RADHA : MEMBER
nb
