IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 25th day of June , 2012
Filed on 28-12-2011
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.423/2011
Between
Complainant :- | Opposite parties:- |
Smt. Bijily, W/o Ramesh, Munduvadakkal, Iravue Kadue, Thiruvampadi P.O, Alappuzha. (By Adv. P.Umasankar) | 1. Geeyam Motors (P) LTD, Municipal Stadium, Alappuzha.Represented by its Manager. 2. General Manager, Geeyam Motors (P) LTD, Kundanoor, Cochin. (By Adv.Shafik M. Abdulkhadir ) |
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH(PRESIDENT)
The complainant case in a nutshel1 is as follows: - The complainant in January 2011 booked a 'Chevrolet Beat' car with the opposite parties. At the time of the said car being so booked, the opposite parties assured the complainant that she would be delivered 2011 model car. The opposite parties obtained from the complainant the cost of 2011 model car from the complainant, and delivered the car on 9th February 2011. The complainant soon learned that the car so delivered by the opposite party was 2010 model car. The opposite parties had got hold of Rs.20000/-( Rupees twenty thousand only ) in excess than the cost of 2010 model car. The complainant along with her husband approached the opposite parties. The opposite parties sought excuses and offered to replace the 2010 model with the 2011 model. Offering so, the 0pposite parties procured the RC book from the complainant, but till date the opposite parties have neither replaced the material car nor have handed back the RC book to the complainant. What is more, the opposite parties harassed the complainant and her husband.. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2 . On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up and filed version . The core of the opposite parties' contention is that the opposite parties had delivered the 2011 model car to the complainant. According to the opposite parties , by an inadvertent mistake on the part of the RTO the cut off chassis numbers of the car have not been duly communicated to the RTO Alappuzha in time. With the result the complainant’s vehicle, though in fact was manufactured in January 2011 was erroneously registered as 2010vehicle. When the said mistake came to the notice of the opposite parties, the concerned authorities were alerted vide multiple letters . The complainant on being convinced true state of affairs submitted RC book before the RTOand got the manufacturing year corrected to 2011. The RTOsent the defect-cured RC book through registered post to the complainant. The opposite parties provided required aid and assistance to the complainant to get the manufacturing year set right. The opposite parties never insult the complainant or her husband. The complainant is not entitled to any relief, the opposite parties vehemently argue. The complaint is experimental , the same is to be dismissed with cost, the opposite party further contends.
3 . The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant and the documents Exbts A 1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the documents Exbts B 1 to B2 were marked.
4 . Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that crop up for
consideration are:-
(a) Whether the complainant was delivered 2010 model car after obtaining the price of the 2011 model car?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief ?
5 .We meticulously perused the complaint, . version and other materials placed on record by the parties. Concededly, the complainant has sought to purchase 2011model ‘Chevrolet Beat' car and she booked the same with the opposite parties. The complainant case is that the complainant paid the price of 2011 model 'Chevrolet Beat' car. Strangely still, when the documents as to the said car were examined, the complainant realized that the car the opposite parties delivered was the 2010 model one. The opposite parties emphatically contend that the car delivered to the complainant was manufactured in January 2011. Consequent to an accidental oversight on the part of the RTO authorities, the manufacturing year was incorporated as 2010 instead of2011. Holding these contentions lively in mind, we with a surgeon's precision effected a searching survey of the materials available with us on record. On a plain perusal of Exbt Al document it apparently appears that the manufacturing date of the material car is stated as 2010. Significantly on a close scrutiny of the entire materials, it does seem that not a scrap of evidence is available on record to prove the contrary. It is true that the opposite parties have fervently disputed the core contention of the complainant that the vehicle in issue was the one manufactured in 2011. The opposite parties save making bald statements, seemingly haven't adopted any meaningful steps to prove their contentions or to refute the complainant's otherwise established contention. We have on several occasions unequivocally observed that making statements alone will not suffice. Whatever all submitted or contented must either be substantiated or the least bit, be supported by convincing materials to bring home the same. On an analysis of the available materials, it is unfolded that the opposite parties have not made it a point to let in any evidence worth a paper to substantiate their contentions. It goes without saying that the complainant case stands well established and absolutely unassailable without being fittingly challenged. We are of the firm view that the complainant is entitled to relief
. In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed herein above, the opposite parties are is directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 25th day of June , 2012. Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Exbt. A1 - Certificate of Registration
Exbt.A2 - Acknowledgement Card
Exbt.A3 - Letter dated 20.10.2011
Evidence of the opposite parties: Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by:-
