Date of filing : 30-10-2009 Date of order : 28-05-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 241/2009 Dated this, the 28th day of May 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER V.K. Abdulla, S/o.Abdul Khader.O.T, Velikoth, Kunnumkai, Po.West Eleri, } Complainant Pin: 671314. (In Person) C.M. Mathew, S/o.Mathews, Chalungal House, } Opposite party Marnadam, Kottamala.Po, Pin: 671 314. (Adv.P.Venugopaln, Hosdurg) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant purchased 2001 model Dawoo Car from opposite party on 27-06-2009. As per the stipulations of sale agreement the complainant paid 55,000/- rupees to the opposite party out of the total purchase price 1,05,000/- rupees. The balance ought to have been paid on 30-07-09 when opposite party arrange the No Objection Certificate at his expense to transfer the vehicle in the name of complainant. But opposite party neither arranged the NOC nor handed over the RC of the vehicle. Hence the complainant could not use the vehicle. Hence the complaint claiming compensation. 2. According to opposite party the sale of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.CJ 5CA 8286 is true. The vehicle is registered with RTA Surat in Gujarat State in the name of his son Binu. Therefore to transfer the vehicle in the name of complainant he contacted his son Binu to make arrangements to get NOC from RTO, Surat. It was obtained on 27-8-2009. On receipt of the NOC opposite party approached the complainant and requested him to bring the vehicle before the RT, Authority at Kanhangad. But he was not ready for the same. The delay is caused due to the non-production of the vehicle by the complainant for transfer. The intention of the complainant is to drag the registration proceedings and thereby delaying the payment of balance consideration 50000/- rupees to opposite party. Hence the complaint deserves dismissal with compensatory costs. 3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 marked. Complainant is cross-examined by learned counsel for opposite party. Opposite party filed proof affidavit and Ext.B1 marked. Opposite party faced cross-examination by the counsel for complainant. Both sides heard. Documents perused. 4. The issues to be settled in this complaint are: 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? 2) If so, as to what relief? 5. The complainant cross-examined as PW1. He deposed during cross-examination that at the time of accepting the car he received the copy of RC, Insurance Policy, smoke testing report etc for plying the vehicle. He further deposed that he is not aware about the fact that the opposite party had obtained NOC and remitted tax in Kanhangad RTO. He further deposed that Peelikunhi and Karunakarn Master as mediators directed him to take the vehicle to RTA for effecting transfer and he told the mediators that he don’t want the vehicle if there will be delay in obtaining the documents. On 28-1-10 he along with opposite party approached the RTO for transferring the vehicle and from there they have gone to the workshop since the vehicle became out of order. They could not take the vehicle to RTA and at that time opposite party told him to inform him after the repairing is done. 6. The statements of complainant makes it clear that the opposite party arranged the NOC and documents for transferring the vehicle and it was on account of the defects of the vehicle the transfer could not be effected. In the above circumstances no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be alleged against the opposite party. Therefore the complaint lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. Hence we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.Photocopy of Agreement. B1. Photocopy of tax licence PW1.V.K.Abdulla DW1.C.M.Mathew Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | |