By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The grievances of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant is a doctor and the opposite party is a dealer of the vehicles under the name and style of KVR Automall. On 18/03/2020, the complainant had approached the opposite party and booked a car XL 6-Zeta - Petrol (Blue colour) and paid Rs.11,000/- as advance. The complainant booked the vehicle on the basis of assurance given by the opposite party that the car will be delivered on the very day of making full payment of value of the car. According to the complainant, the opposite party had undertaken that the vehicle will be delivered on 21/03/2020 and directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 11,35,914/- (Eleven lakh thirty five thousand nine hundred and fourteen only) by way of DD on that day. Accordingly, on 21/03/2020 at about 11.00 AM the complainant had handed over DD for Rs. 11,35,914/- to the opposite party. But the opposite party did not deliver the vehicle on that day instead assured that delivery will be made on 23/03/2020. The complainant contacted the opposite party on 23/03/2020, but the opposite party again failed to make delivery of the vehicle and promised to make it on 25/03/2020. But covid-19 pandemic related lockdown was declared on 24/03/2020 by the Government and the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant on 25/03/2020. The complainant and her father continuously contacted the opposite party for getting the vehicle, but the opposite party did not deliver the vehicle. Finally the opposite party offered to deliver the vehicle on 11/05/2020. When the complainant approached the opposite party for taking delivery of the vehicle on 11/05/2020, the opposite party demanded Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) more by stating that price of the vehicle was increased. But the complainant did not make payment of additional amount as demanded by the opposite party and stated that she had already paid entire price of the vehicle. Moreover it is stated by the complainant that she was not responsible for the hike in the price of the vehicle. It is alleged in the complaint that the staffs of the opposite party misbehaved and even scolded the complainant with ugly words. The opposite party not delivered the vehicle to the complainant without payment of enhanced price. Finally, on 13/05/2020 the complainant approached the opposite party for collecting the amount paid as the price of the vehicle as per direction made by the opposite party. But the opposite party had refused to refund the amount. The opposite party told her that there will be no refund of price of the vehicle and challenged to take steps for getting money back. It is averred by the complainant that she had effected full payment on 21/03/2020 on the basis of assurance given by the opposite party to deliver the vehicle on 23/03/2020. The payment was made by arranging a loan from Co-operative Urban Bank, Mankada branch. The complainant is making repayment of EMI to the bank as per the terms of the loan agreement. It is also revealed by the complainant that she had sold her car on the basis of assurance given by the opposite party as new vehicle will be delivered as promised. So the complainant could not go to her clinic situated at Malappuram for a long time as she had no other vehicle for her own use. The complainant has stated that the opposite party had committed unfair trade practice and acted negligently towards the complainant. The complainant suffered mental agony and hardship due to the act of the opposite party. So the complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 11,46,914/- (Rupees Eleven lakh fourty six thousand nine hundred and fourteen only) to the complainant paid as the price of the vehicle. The complainant also claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) from the opposite party as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship. The complainant also claimed Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
2. The complaint was admitted and notice issued to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed version.
3. According to the opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable, baseless and based on erroneous interpretation of facts and laws. The opposite party contended that the complainant is not consumer as defined in the Act. It is stated that the opposite party can only deliver a vehicle with proper registration with Motor Vehicle Department that too after taking insurance of the vehicle on and after receipt of the entire payment that too on availability of the vehicle at garage. It is further stated by the opposite party that the amount was reached at the bank of the opposite party only on 23/03/2020 late afternoon. So the opposite party could make payment of road tax of the vehicle on 23/03/2020, as the instrument was a Pay Order of Co-operative bank, Mankada Branch. It is contended by the opposite party that the fund ought to have been reached on 21/03/2020 through RTGS or NEFT, but the Pay Order was issued by a Co-operative Bank and therefore collection was mandatory. The opposite party denied the statement of the complainant that the opposite party had offered delivery of the vehicle on 21/03/2020 on payment of full amount as DD. According to the opposite party, the Pay Order was produced on 21/03/2020 at the time of closing hours of the business and same was sent for collection on the same day to the Federal Bank, Angadipuram Branch. It is also denied by the opposite party that the opposite party had offered to deliver the vehicle on 23/03/2020 and subsequently on 25/03/2020. No such promise was made by the opposite party. It is also stated by the opposite party that due to lock down the vehicle could not be delivered. The opposite party denied the statement of the complainant that the opposite party had promised to deliver the vehicle on 11/05/2020 and also demanded additional amount of Rs. 20,000/-. According to the opposite party, the complainant was well aware of the fact that there would be a hike in the road tax. It is stated that the opposite party can takes step to transfer the money to respective heads towards invoice price, insurance and registration department only after receiving the sum in the account of the opposite party. The allegations of misbehaviour towards the complainant and demand of additional amount or to get away with the money paid are denied by the opposite party. It is contended that the complainant had requested to cancel the booking on 14/05/2020 with remarks noted as tax hike and financial issue. The opposite party has stated in the version that the complainant had requested to refund the amount paid but the opposite party could not release the amount as a consent letter was required from the bank from where the loan was secured by the complainant. Moreover the bank had given instruction to the opposite party to get endorsed the hypothecation in the registration certificate of the vehicle. The opposite party also denied the statement of the complainant that she could not attend her clinic due to non availability of the vehicle and she had sold her vehicle under the impression that new vehicle will be delivered as promised. According to the opposite party, it is the duty of the customer to pay tax applicable at the time of delivery of the vehicle and also pay the price prevailing at the time of delivery. It is contended that the Kerala Budget, 2020 had enhanced the road tax @ 2 % and the complainant had also undertook to pay the enhanced tax and an undertaking was also given on 17/03/2020. It is contended by the opposite party that there was no irresponsibility or not committed any short coming in the service of the opposite party. It is stated in the version that the Commission can order refund of Rs. 11,46,914/- and thereby absolve the liability of the opposite party. The opposite party did not commit deficiency in service or unfair trade practice towards the complainant. The relief sought for Rs. 5,00,000/- is illegal and unsustainable. According to the opposite party, the prayer for cost of the proceedings is also unwarranted one. It is the complainant and their bank not taken appropriate steps on time to get refund of the amount and therefore the amount could not be refunded. The opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant and the opposite party filed affidavits and also produced documents to support their respective contentions. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 to Ext. A4 documents. Ext. A1 document is the copy of receipt dated 18/03/2020 issued by the opposite party to the complainant showing the payment Rs. 11,000/-as advance. Ext. A2 document is the copy of receipt dated 21/03/2020 issued by the opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 11,35,914/- as DD. Ext. A3 document is the copy of bank account pass book issued by the Co-operative Urban Bank, Mankada Branch to the complainant showing the amount secured by way of loan. Ext. A4 documents are the copies of receipts dated 09/03/2021 and 30/09/2021 showing the repayment of EMI of the loan.
5. The documents produced by the opposite party are marked as Ext. B1 to Ext.B11 documents. Ext. B1 document is the copy of booking requisition form dated 17/03/2020 showing the details of booking of the vehicle by the complainant. Ext.B2 document is the copy of receipt dated 18/03/2020 showing the payment of Rs. 11,000/- as booking amount made by the complainant. Ext. B3 document is the copy of order booking for the vehicle dated 18/03/2020. Ext. B4 document is the copy of covering letter issued by Co-operative Urban Bank, Mankada Branch dated 21/03/2020 to the opposite party. Ext. B5 document is the copy of receipt voucher dated 21/03/2020 showing the receipt of DD for Rs. 11,35,914/- from the complainant. Ext. B6 document is the copy of undertaking dated 17/03/2020 issued by the complainant in favour of the opposite party. Ext. B7 document is the copy of booking cancellation form dated 14/05/2020 issued by the complainant. Ext. B8 document is the copy of booking cancellation letter dated 14/05/2020 issued by the complainant. Ext. B9 document is the copy of statement of account held by the opposite party showing the date of payment of price of the vehicle by the complainant. Ext.B10 documents are the copies of emails sent to the Co-operative Urban Bank, Mankada Branch on 27/05/2020 and 10/06/2020 by opposite party. Ext. B11 series documents are the copies of letter dated 19/08/2020 and postal receipt along with acknowledgement card issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
6. Heard both sides in detail. Perused documents and affidavits of the parties. The Commission considered the following points for adjudication of the matter.
- Whether the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice or deficiency in service towards the complainant.
- Reliefs and cost
7. The point No.1 and 2:-
The complainant has contended that she had made advance of Rs. 11,000/- to the opposite party to purchase a car and copy of the receipt dated 18/03/2020 issued by the opposite party is produced by the complainant . The Commission marked the copy of receipt as Ext. A1 document. It is further averred that the complainant had paid entire balance amount of Rs. 11,35,914/- to the opposite party on 21/03/2020 as DD issued from her banker M/s Co-operative Urban Bank, Mankada Branch. The opposite party issued receipt for Rs. 11,35,914/- and copy of receipt dated 21/03/2020 is produced before the Commission and same is marked as Ext. A2 document . The complainant has stated that the opposite party had made a promise to deliver the vehicle on the very day of making full payment of the vehicle i.e, on 21/03/2020. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party did not deliver the vehicle on 21/03/2020 and in turn assured of making it on 23/03/2020. On 23/03/2020, the complainant approached the opposite party for taking delivery of the vehicle but the opposite party postponed the delivery to 25/03/2020. On 24/03/2020 Government declared lockdown due to Covid -19 pandemic. The opposite party did not deliver the vehicle as promised. It is alleged by the complainant that she had consistently contacted the opposite party to get delivery of the vehicle. Finally, as per the direction given by the opposite party, the complainant had approached the opposite party on 11/05/2020 for taking delivery of the vehicle. But the complainant had demanded additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- on the ground that there was a hike in the road tax rate. So the complainant cancelled the purchase order of the car. The contention of the complainant is that she was not responsible for the hike of road tax rate and paid full amount before the enhancement of tax rate. It is also stated by the complainant that she had paid the price of the car by availing a loan from the Bank. The complainant produced copy of pass book of her bank account and same is marked as Ext. A3 document. It is also averred by the complainant that she is making repayment of loan and produced copies of the receipts dated 09.03.2021 and 30/09/2021 and those receipts are marked as Ext. A4 document. Ext. A4 document shows that the complainant is paying EMI of the loan availed for the purchase of the car. So far, the opposite did not refund the amount paid for the car irrespective of repeated requests made by the complainant.
8. The Commission find that the opposite party has admitted the advance payment made on 18/03/2020 as per Ext. A1 document. The opposite party produced copy of booking requisition form dated 17/03/2020 and marked it as Ext. B1 document. Ext. B1 document shows that the tentative day of delivery of the vehicle was fixed as one week period. The opposite party also produced copy of receipt dated 18/03/2020 issued for the advance payment of Rs. 11,000/- and it is marked as Ext.B2 document. Ext.A1 document and Ext. B2 document are one and same. The opposite party produced copy of order booking issued to the complainant and same is marked Ext.B3 document. Ext.B3 document shows that the tentative date of delivery of the vehicle was fixed as 25/03/2020 and on road price is shown Rs. 9,91,479.94/- (Nine lakh ninety one thousand four hundred and seventy nine rupees and ninety four paisa only). The opposite party also admitted the availment of loan by the complainant and produced the copy of covering letter dated 21/03/2020 issued by Co-operative Urban Bank, Mankada Branch and same is marked as Ext. B4 document. The opposite party also issued a receipt dated 21/03/2022 to the complainant and same is marked as Ext. B5 document. Ext.B5 document shows that the opposite party had received Rs. 11,35,914/- from the complainant as the price of the car. Ext. A2 document and Ext. B5 document are one and same. It is contended by the opposite party that no promise was made to deliver the vehicle on 21/03/2020 or on 23/03/2020. It is stated by the opposite party that the opposite party was bound to deliver the vehicle only after the completion of registration and availing insurance coverage. So the receipt of entire amount was mandatory. But in this case the amount was received by the bank of the opposite party only on 23/03/2020 late afternoon. The opposite party has produced copy of statement of account held by the opposite party, and same is marked as Ext.B9 document. Ext. B9 document shows that the amount was credited in the account on 23/03/2020. On the very next day lockdown was declared by the Government. According to the opposite party, there was a hike in road tax followed by the presentation of new Budget of Kerala Government and the complainant was liable to pay additional amount as the enhanced rate of car. But the complainant was reluctant to pay additional amount and so she had cancelled the order of purchase. It is averred by the opposite party that the complainant was very well aware of the fact that there would be a hike in the rate road tax. The opposite party produced the copy of undertaking dated 17/03/2020 issued by the complainant and same is marked as Ext. B6 document. The opposite party has produced copy of Booking cancellation form dated 14/05/2020 signed by the complainant and marked it as Ext. B7 document. The opposite party has produced the letter dated 14/05/2020 issued by the complainant requesting to cancel the purchase order of the vehicle and same is marked as Ext. B8 document. It is contended by the opposite party that neither the complainant nor the Bank had taken any step to refund the amount in favour of the complainant. According to the opposite party, a consent letter from the Bank was highly necessary to release the amount. It is stated by the opposite party that, the opposite party is ready to refund amount on the basis of an order of this Commission. The opposite party produced copies of email transactions made with Bank and same are marked as Ext. B10 document. The opposite party also issued notice dated 19/08/2020 to the complainant requesting to send bank details to refund the advance amount. The letter, postal receipts and acknowledgement card are produced by the opposite party and those documents are marked as Ext. B11 series documents.
9. In the evaluation of evidence, it can be seen that the complainant had remitted entire value of the car on 21/03/2020. It is stated in the complaint and affidavit that she had remitted the amount at about 11.00 am on 21/03/2020. But the opposite party contended that the complainant had handed over the Pay Order on 21/03/2020 at about the closing hours of business. Exts. A1 and A2 documents produced by the complainant and Ext. B4 and B5 documents produced by the opposite party would show that complainant had approached the opposite party on 21/03/2020 to hand over the balance amount. At the same time Ext. A1, Ext.A2, Ext.B4 and Ext.B5 documents do not disclose the time of production of Pay Order before the opposite party. Ext. A3 document shows that amount was available in the account of the complainant on the very day of 21/03/2020 itself. The Commission find that there was no chance to waste the time by keeping a Pay Order in the hands of the complainant, especially in a situation where the complainant was availed it by way of loan. The opposite party did not bring any evidence to prove that the complainant had produced the pay order on 21/03/2020 at the closing hour of the business. If the opposite party had presented the Pay Order for collection on 21/03/2020 itself, the delivery of the vehicle could have done on the same day or at least on 23/03/2020. The opposite party did not state that the bank of the complainant was situated far from the bank of the opposite party. Moreover, the opposite party had availed with an opportunity to endorse the exact time of production of Pay Order on Ext. A2 document but failed to do so. So the Commission find that the opposite party had negligently acted in producing the Pay Order to credit the amount in the account of the opposite party. There are no evidence available before the Commission to show that the amount reached at the bank of the opposite party only on 23/03/2020 late afternoon or the Pay Order was produced for collection on 21/03/2020. In this situation, the Commission find that the opposite party was responsible for non registration of the vehicle on or before 23/03/2020.
10. The opposite party had contended that collection of money was mandatory as remittance was made through a Pay Order issued by a Co-operative Bank. The above said contention of the opposite party is untenable and not sustainable. The complainant had averred in the complaint that she had handed over a Demand Draft to the opposite party. But we find that the instrument was a Pay Order issued from the banker of the complainant not a DD as stated in the complaint. We can find that there would be no chance to dishonour a Pay Order as the amount covered by it already deposited and guaranteed by the issuing bank. Moreover there cannot be any discrimination between a Nationalised bank and a Co-operative bank while dealing with Pay Orders issued by them. The Commission come across that the complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2(7) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Even though the opposite party challenged the status of the complainant in version, no attempt was made to bring out evidence on that aspect. The complainant failed to bring out details of her vehicle sold under the impression that new vehicle will be delivered by the opposite party as promised. Moreover the complainant also failed to adduce evidence on the aspect of alleged misbehaviour from the side of the opposite party.
11. The complainant argued that she had cancelled the purchase order of the car due to the demand of additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- by the opposite party. It is alleged that the opposite party was solely responsible for creating such occasion. Ext. B7 and B8 documents would show that the complainant had taken initiative to cancel the purchase order of the car. Ext. B7 document reveals that tax hike and financial issue are the reasons for cancellation. According to the complainant, she came to know about the hike of the tax on 11/05/2022. But the opposite party contended that the complainant was well aware of the fact that there would be a hike in the price of the vehicle. The opposite party produced Ext. B6 document to substantiate his above said contention. Ext. B6 document would show that an undertaking was signed by the complainant on 17/03/2020. In the evidence available before the Commission, it can be seen that the complainant was decided to purchase the car on 18/03/2020 after making payment as per Ext. A1 document. But prior to 18/03/2020, an undertaking was executed by the complainant. Both parties did not speak about date of execution of Ext. B6 document in the complaint and version. It can be find that the complainant had taken proper steps to get registered the vehicle in his favour before 01/04/2020 as she could produce Pay Order on 21/03/2020 at about 11.00 AM. As per Ext. B6 document the enhanced tax rate will be implemented only on 01/04/2020. So a duty was cast upon the opposite party to deliver the vehicle or to complete registration procedure of the vehicle through online. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the net connectivity with RTO was fast and good and net connectivity of insurance Company was also fast and good. During the time of lockdown, the society was moved with a new work culture called as ‘’work at home”. So the opposite party cannot absolve from the liability under the manoeuvre of lockdown declared on 24/03/2020 due to covid -19 pandemic. When going through Ext.B1 document, it can be seen that at the time of signing booking requisition form it was agreed by the parties that vehicle delivery would be subjected to the availability. But in this case, it was admitted by the opposite party that vehicle was available in the garage on the date of payment of money. So as per the law envisaged in the Sale of Goods Act 1930, the delivery of goods and payment of the price are concurrent conditions, that is to say, the seller shall be ready and willing to give possession of the goods to the buyer in exchange for the price, and buyer shall be ready and willing to pay the price in exchange for possession of goods. In such a situation the opposite party was bound to deliver the vehicle at the earliest , but failed to do so.
12. Ext.B1 document , produced by the opposite party stated that the vehicle will be delivered only after realisation of amount. Delivery of the vehicle means and include delivery after completion of registration process and availment of insurance policy. It was stated by the opposite party that due to Covid-19 pandemic related lockdown, the delivery could not be effected. It is proved that the entire amount was collected by the opposite party prior to the hike of road tax i.e before 01/04/2020. So as per Ext. B1 document, the opposite party was bound to hand over the vehicle on 21/03/2020, the day on which Pay Order was received by the opposite party. If any ambiguity is found interpreting the word delivery seen in Ext. B1 document, the Commission can avail assistance of Contra proferentem rule. When a word is to be construed, resulting in two alternative interpretations then, the interpretation which is against the person using or drafting the word or expression which have given rise to the difficulty in construction, applies. This rule is usually invoked in interpreting standard form contracts. Ext. B1 document is such kind of contract which is heavily comprise of forms with printed terms which are invariably used for the contracts of sale of vehicle by the opposite party. In this juncture, the Commission find that the opposite party was liable to deliver the vehicle to the complainant on the very same day of collection of entire value of the vehicle. So the opposite party cannot evade from his liability in the name imposed by Government. If a contract is in existence, both parties are liable to face the consequence of any eventuality equally. Here the opposite party had attempted to shift the entire burden of lockdown upon the complainant arbitrarily.
13. It has brought out in evidence that the complainant had cancelled the purchase order on 14/05/2020 and demanded for refund of the amount paid for the vehicle. Ext. B7 and B8 documents reveal the date of cancellation. It was pleaded by the complainant that she had constantly contacted the opposite party to get back the amount. But the opposite party was reluctant and stated that the a consent letter from the bank was not produced by the complainant to release the amount. It is contended by the opposite party that the banking authority had instructed to endorse the hire purchase agreement in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. So the opposite party demanded to produce a consent letter from the bank or to repay the entire loan amount to release the amount from the account of the opposite party in favour of the complainant. But, when analysing the evidence adduced by the parties, the Commission find that the opposite party had committed unfair trade practice by keeping the money of the complainant without valid reason. The Commission can not close its eyes on the fact that the money was not kept in idle in the account of the opposite party . The opposite party was not a surety to the loan or no liability would cast upon the opposite party in case of any default of repayment. It can be find that the opposite party was also failed to take legal steps to return the money into the hands of the complainant at the earliest. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant had arranged the amount by availing a loan from the Co-operative Urban Bank, Mankada branch. So, for the delay of every day, the complainant has to pay interest to the loan amount. Ext. B10 document would show that the opposite party had contacted the bank only after two weeks of issuance of Ext. A8 document. Ext.B11 would show that the opposite party contacted the complainant after 25 days of period . Moreover it can be find that the opposite party issued Ext.B10 and Ext.B11 documents only after filing of this complaint. Thereafter no proper step was taken by the opposite party to discharge his liability even though legal remedy was available to refund of the amount. It was contended by the opposite party that there would be legal action against the opposite party by the bank if the amount was directly refunded to the complainant. But the above pleading of the opposite party has placed no merit. It is stated by the opposite party that the bank received intimation from the opposite party with regard to cancellation of purchase order. But it was not seen that an action was taken by the Bank against the complainant and the opposite party. The very case of the complainant was that the opposite party did not refund the amount. From the evidence, it can be found that the complainant did not make any allegation against the Bank. But, on the contrary, the opposite party alleged that the bank had not taken any action to release the amount from the opposite party. Conversely, the opposite party did not take any step to implead the bank of the complainant as a necessary party in the proceedings. So it can be concluded that the opposite party was trying to hide material facts before the Commission in order to absolve from his liability.
14. The above discussed facts reveal that the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service towards the complainant. The act of non refund of money owned by the complainant is amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The failure of registration of vehicle in due time can be treated as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has no right to keep the money owned by the complainant. It is evident that the complainant, who is a practicing doctor has suffered mental agony, hardship and financial loss due to the acts of the opposite party . So the opposite party is liable to compensate. The complainant has succeeded in proving her case. Hence complaint is allowed in the following manner:-
- The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 11,46,914/-(Rupees Eleven lakh fourty six thousand nine hundred and fourteen only) to the complainant with 12% interest from 14/05/2020 till the date of this order.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakh only) to the complainant for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed against the complainant.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of this order otherwise the entire amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of the order.
Dated this 30th day of June , 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A4
Ext. A1 : Document is the copy of receipt dated 18/03/2020 issued by the opposite
party to the complainant showing the payment Rs. 11,000/-.
Ext. A2 : Document is the copy of receipt dated 21/03/2020 issued by the opposite
party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 11,35,914/- as DD.
Ext. A3 : Document is the copy of bank account pass book issued by the Co-operative
Urban Bank, Mankada Branch to the complainant showing the secured by
way of loan.
Ext. A4 : Document are the copies of receipts dated 09/03/2021 and 30/09/2021
showing the repayments of loan.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B11
Ext. B1 : Document is the copy of booking requisition form dated 17/03/2020
showing the details of booking of the vehicle by the complainant.
Ext.B2 : Document is the copy of receipt dated 18/03/2020 showing the payment of
Rs. 11,000/- as booking amount made by the complainant .
Ext. B3 : Document is the copy of order booking for the vehicle dated 18/03/2020.
Ext. B4 : Document is the copy of covering letter Urban Co-operative Bank, Mankada
Branch dated 21/03/2020 issued to the opposite party.
Ext. B5 : Document is the copy of receipt voucher dated 21/03/2020 showing the
receipt of DD for RS. 11,35,914/- from the complainant.
Ext. B6 : Document is the copy of undertaking dated 17/03/2020 issued by the
complainant .
Ext. B7 : Document is the copy of booking cancellation form dated 14/05/2020
issued by the complainant .
Ext. B8 : Document is the copy of booking cancellation letter dated 14/05/2020
issued by the complainant .
Ext. B9 : Document is the copy of statement of account held by the opposite party
showing the date of payment of price of the vehicle by the complainant.
Ext. B10 : Documents are the copies of emails sent to the Co-operative Urban Bank
on 27/05/2020 and 10/06/2020 by the opposite party.
Ext. B11 : Documents are the copies of letter dated 19/08/2020 and postal receipt
and acknowledgement card.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER