IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 29th day of September, 2009
Filed on 17.03.2008
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.56/2008
between
Complainant :- | Opposite party:- |
Smt. S.R. Neena. W/o Sasikumar, Kadavilchira Bungalow, Vuthukulam Thekkumuri, Vuthukulam Village (Adv. Prathap G. Padickal, Kayamkulam) | M/s. Popular Vehicl &Service Limited, Represented by Branch Head Manager, Popular Vehicles & Service Limited (opposite) SNV Sadanam, S N College Junction, Kollam. |
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant is that on 6th March 2007, the Sales Executive of the opposite party approached the complainant and offered to sell Maruti Wagon-R in exchange of the complainant’s Maruti 800 car bearing No.KL5-K4455 adjusting the value of the same to the new car. As such, the said Sales Executive, offered Rs.40000/-(Rupees Forty thousand only ) for the complainant’s old car, and took the same along with the relevant documents to the opposite party’s company. The very next day, the sales Executive handed over information sheet, Order Booking Form etc to the complainant. Thereafter, notwithstanding the opposite party’s alluring offer and inducement of arrangement of finance and prompt delivery of the new vehicle the opposite party was absolutely not eager to arrange finance or to deliver the vehicle as promised. What is more, the opposite party was even indisposed to hand back the complainant’s vehicle. The complainant approached the opposite party directly and otherwise either for the return of the complainant’s car or for its offered price. The complainant was even constrained to approach the head office the opposite party in vain. As a last resort, the complainant took recourse to sit-in-fast in front of the company. Strangely yet the opposite party has neither give back the complainant’s vehicle nor its price. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice being served, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant was not the registered owner of the vehicle. The transfer form viz. Form 29&30 handed over by the complainant were not signed by the genuine registered owner of the vehicle. With the result, the complainant was asked to produce the proper documents as to the complainant’s vehicle Maruti 800 car bearing No.KL5-K4455. According to the opposite party, the said vehicle is in its custody since 7th March 2007. The complainant on 4th March 2008 with oblique motive staged a demonstration in front of the company. On the opposite parties complaint, the concerned circle inspector of police intervened, and the opposite party expressed their readiness to return the complainant’s vehicle and the relevant documents to the complainant. The complainant and her husband were not agreeable with the same, the opposite party forcefully contends. The attempt of the complainant is to extract more money from the opposite party. The complainant is not a consumer to the opposite part. The complainant has no cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant is only to be dismissed with cost, the opposite party vehemently contends.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant and the documents Exbts A I to A3 were marked. The opposite party though filed version did not make it a point to adduce any evidence.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the issues that come up before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to relief?
5. Concededly, the opposite party took the complainant vehicle on an arrangement of selling new vehicle to her. The complainant was offered service from the part of the opposite party, and as such the complainant is a consumer. The opposite party’s contention is that the documents the complainant handed over to the opposite party pertaining to the complainant’s vehicle was not perfect. Indisputably rather admittedly the complainant’s Maruti 800 car bearing No.KL5-K4455 was in the custody of the opposite party since 7th March 2007. If that be so, on what premise the opposite party would have took the complainant’s vehicle in their hold which is devoid of any proper document. According to the opposite party itself, the complainant resorted to sit-in-fast on 4th March 2008 that is on expiry of around one year. In this context, it is to be assumed that the complainant must have fallen back on every possible course prior to taking the aforesaid extreme step belatedly. It is pertinent to note that if the complainant’s documents as to her vehicle were imperfect, the opposite party could have returned the vehicle at a very earlier stage. We perused Exbts Al to A3 documents the complainant produced. Exbt A2 Information sheet and ExbtA3 Order Booking Form go along way to substantiate the complainant case to a greater extend. As we have already observed the opposite party, though appeared and filed version was not keen on adducing any evidence to prove its contention. Thus in the backdrop of complainant’s plausible case, and the opposite party’s failure to meaningfully challenge the same, we are persuaded to accept the complainant’s case. Viewing from every perspective, the opposite party committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.
6. In view of the facts and findings of the discussions made herein above, the opposite party is directed to payout to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only ), the price the opposite party offered to the complainant’s vehicle. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only ) as compensation and an amount of Rs.500/-(Rupees Two thousand five hundred only ) as cost to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
The complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to compensation or cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2009.
Sd/- Sri.Jimmy Korah
Sd/- Sri.K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sri. Arryn Jan (Complainant)
Ext. A1 -Letter dated 25/04/2007
Ext.A2 - Order Booking dated 07/03/2007
Ext.A3 - Preliminary Information Sheet 07/03/2007
Evidence of the Opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by:-