Date of filing: 24.01.2012.
Date of disposal: 26.06.2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., Member
Tuesday the 26th day of June, 2012
C.C.No.21 of 2012
Between:
M.V.N. Ranga Rao, S/o late Krishna Rao, Tax Consultant and Auditor, Office Dr.No.27-17-5, Governorpet, Peddibhotla Vari Street, Vijayawada – 2.
. … Complainant.
AND
Chinnam Madhu Babu, Chief Life Insurance Advisor, Life Insurance Corporation of India, R/o.D.No.T4, Sri Vayuputra Residence, Hindi College Road, Machavarm, Vijayawada.
. … Opposite Party.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 11.06.2012, in the presence Sri P. Gowtham Reddy, advocate for complainant, Sri B. Suryanarayana Kumar, advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao)
1. The complainant is a Tax Consultant and Auditor. The opposite party is Chief Life Insurance Advisor, LIC of India. They were friends. The opposite party sold his Honda Activa scooter bearing registration No.AP 16 AL 2091 to the complainant for consideration in the month of January, 2010. The opposite party received Rs.25,000/- through cheque towards sale consideration and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 15.1.2010. The parties are not in dispute thus far.
2. The complainant further pleads that at the time of delivering the vehicle the opposite party had stated that the vehicle was in good and roadworthy condition that he would deliver the certificate of registration, insurance policy, policy certificate etc., one or two days later as they were mixed up with other records of the opposite party. The complainant further adds that the vehicle was shown to mechanic and it was found that the horn, signal light, self start were not functioning that they were replaced at the cost of the complainant; that the opposite party did not deliver the certificate of registration and other documents and the complainant sent a letter on 23.1.2010 for those documents but they were not given and that lastly he got issued legal notice on 2.6.2011 and as there was no compliance this complaint is filed.
3. The opposite party contends through his version filed in the form of counter that the vehicle was sold for Rs.27,500/-; that the complainant is still due in a sum of Rs.2,500/-; that the vehicle was in good condition at the time of delivery that at the time of delivery itself, all necessary papers namely certificate of registration, insurance policy and pollution certificate were given to the complainant that the opposite party had signed the transfer form on 15.1.2010 that the pollution certificate and insurance policy have to be renewed as they were issued for limited period and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party specifically denies the allegations as to issue of letter on 23.1.2010 and service of that letter.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit and the opposite party also filed his affidavit they are received as evidences of PW-1 and DW-1 respectively.
5. The complainant marked Ex.A1 copy of relevant pages of bank pass book, Ex.A2 copy of letter dated 15.1.2010, Ex.A3 copy of legal notice dated 2.6.2011, Ex.A4 postal acknowledgement and Ex.A5 registration particulars of the vehicle.
No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite party.
6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
7. Points for determination are:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs prayed for?
Point No.1:
8. Both parties filed their affidavits and stated in support of their respective contention. While the complainant states that the relevant certificates including certificate of registration were not delivered to the complainant, the opposite party says that he delivered them. Though the complainant said to have addressed a letter under Ex.A2 dated 15.1.2010 and posted on 23.1.2010, there is no proof of either sending the letter through post or service of post on the opposite party. When the receipt of that letter denied by the opposite party; this Forum cannot give weight to the copy of letter filed by the complainant under Ex.A2. There is another factor to doubt this letter. According to the complaint the opposite party told that the relevant documents were mixed up with other record and they would be given in one or two days. The vehicle was admittedly delivered on 15.1.2010. If the letter Ex.A2 was prepared on 15.1.2010 the complainant would not have mentioned in this letter about those documents and would not have called upon the opposite party to deliver them without delay. So, there is no material to accept the contention of the complainant that he addressed the letter to the opposite party.
9. The legal notice was served on the opposite party on 6.6.2011 as per the stamp on Ex.A4. There was no reply notice. Merely because there was no reply to the notice this Forum cannot ready to accept the complainant’s version particularly when the notice was issued about 1½ years after the date of sale. There is only oath against oath. It is for the complainant to establish that the documents were not handed over to them. It is not the statement of the complainant that he issued any receipt while taking delivery so that the complainant would have mentioned only delivery of the vehicle and non-delivery of certificate. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish that the opposite party did not deliver certificate of registration, insurance certificate and pollution certificate. Consequently there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Point No.2:
10. In view of the answer on point no.1 the complainant is not entitled to any relief. We are not inclined to burden the complainant with costs.
11. In the result this complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Steno N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 26th day of June, 2012.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:
Pw – 1, M.V.N. Ranga Rao, DW – 1, Chinnam Madhu Babu, (by affidavit) (by affidavit).
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 Copy of relevant pages of bank pass book.
Ex.A2 15.01.2010 Copy of letter.
Ex.A3 02.06.2011 Copy of legal notice.
Ex.A4 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A5 Registration particulars of the vehicle
On behalf of the opposite party: Nil.
PRESIDENT
