O R D E R
(By Sri. Ganesh Jadhav, President)
1. This is a complaint filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. In brief the facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant and Opposite Party are well acquainted to each other and due to that acquaintance Opposite Party approached to the complainant on 10-05-2014 and offered to sell VERNA 1.6 CRDI SX BSIV, FOUR WHEELER VEHICLE, crystal white colour model 2011, bearing registration No. AP 07 BG 1818 at the sale price of RS. 6,65,000/- and also under took to give no objection certificate/clearance certificate from the RTO and believing the Opposite Party version and due to old acquaintance the complainant accepted Opposite Party offer and inspected and checked the above vehicle and after satisfying himself he paid Rs. 11,000/- as advance amount and under took to take the delivery of the car by paying the remaining balance amount of Rs.6,54,000/- on condition that Opposite Party will submit clearance certificate within two to three days i.e before 14-5-2014. That at that time the kilometer reading of car was 33,922 at Nizambad. It is further alleged that after wards on enquiry with the RTA office at Nizamabad the complainant came to know that the said vehicle is Hypothecated to Magma Finance Corporation Ltd., Vijayawada which was not disclosed during sale transaction by the Opposite Party which also amounts cheating and fraud.
Further it is alleged that complainant was ready with the remaining balance of Rs. 6,54,000/- and had informed the said facts number of times orally and on telephone but the opposite party is avoiding to receive balance amount and deliver the car and clear the Hypothecation of the car and he also avoiding to give clearance certificate and on some or other false pretexts, there by postponing to give delivery of said vehicle to complainant there by intentionally avoiding to complete the above sale transaction. It is alleged that on 16-05-2014 the complainant got issued legal notice through his counsel by registered post with acknowledgement due by courier service but having received the notice the opposite party did not respond nor complete the sale transaction. Therefore the acts of the Opposite Party are amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Therefore it is prayed to direct the opposite party to complete sale transaction by transferring the VERNA car bearing No. AP 07 BG 1818 by delivering the said car with kilometer reading at 33,922 by clearing all hypothecations and by giving clearance certificate and necessary documents and accessories etc., by receiving the balance amount after deducting compensation which will be decided by this Hon’ble Court or in the alternative to direct the opposite party to refund the advance amount of Rs. 11,000/- with interest and award compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and with costs.
3. The opposite Party remained exparte through out proceedings.
4. During enquiry, the evidence affidavit of complainant is filed in lieu of his evidence as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1to A6.
5. The points for consideration are that :
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on part of Opposite Party ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
iii) To what relief?
6. POINT Nos. 1 to 3
On perusal of the evidence affidavit of complainant PW1 it is clear that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 11,000/- as advance to the Opposite party towards the sale transaction of VERNA 1.6 CRDI SX BSIV, car White colour model 2011, bearing registration No. AP 07 BG 1818 at the sale price of Rs. 6,65,000/- offered by the Opposite Party and under took to take delivery of the car by paying remaining balance amount of Rs. 6,54,000/- on condition that the opposite party will submit clearance certificate within two to three days i.e before 14-05-2014. Further it is clear that the complainant was ready to pay the remaining balance amount of sale transaction but the opposite party avoided to receive the balance amount and to deliver the car thereby, failed to fulfil the terms of the sale transaction. Even though the complainant sent the legal notice dated 16-05-2014, the opposite party having received the said notice failed to complete sale transaction by transferring and delivering the said car. Ex.A1 is the advance receipt dated 10-05-2014 issued by Unique Motors shows that an amount of Rs. 11,000/- was received in advance and the balance of Rs. 6,54,000/- is to be paid. Ex.A2 is the legal notice and Ex.A3 is the courier receipt dated : 16-05-2014. These Ex.A2 and A3 show that the complainant has sent the legal notice to the opposite party through courier under Ex.A3. The Opposite Party after receipt of the legal notice Ex.A2 gave reply notice Ex.A6 dated 23-06-2014 to the complainant wherein the opposite party admitted that Rs. 11,000/- was paid on 10-05-2013 as token amount in advance by the complainant. The said reply notice also disclosed that the opposite party has sent DD No. 076382, for Rs. 11,000/- dated 21-06-2014, drawn on SBI, Balkampet Branch, Hyderabad to the complainant, which clearly establishes that the opposite party acted upon after filing the complaint on 04-06-2014 before the Forum so, there is a deficeincy on the part of Opposite party. In rebuttal there is no evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
Having considered the facts of the case and evidence of PW1 supported by the documentary evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant established his claim with regard to the sale transaction of the said car between the complainant and opposite party and that the opposite party failed to fulfil the sale transaction and as such there is deficiency of service on his part.
The complainant filed memo on 05-08-2014 stating that subsequent to filing of complaint the opposite party sent a reply notice dated 23-06-2014, enclosing a demand draft No. 076382, dated 21-06-2014 of State Bank of India Branch Balkampet, Hyderabad for Rs. 11,000/- and he enclosed the Xerox copy of said DD and prayed that the same may be taken on record in this complaint as part satisfaction of claim of the complaint. From this memo it is clear that the complainant had received back the amount of Rs.11,000/- from the Opposite party through said DD towards part satisfaction. In these circumstances we are of considered opinion that the complainant is now not entitled for the amount of Rs. 11,000/- as claimed herein because he has already received the said amount through DD from the opposite party as admitted by him. He is entitled of Rs. 1000/- towards compensation only.
Accordingly the point Nos. 1 to 3 are answered.
7. IN THE RESULT, the complaint is allowed in part as under :-
1) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant towards compensation.
2) The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 500/- towards costs of the complaint.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Forum on this the 27th day of November 2014.
