Kerala

Malappuram

CC/118/2020

SURYA GAYATHRI - Complainant(s)

Versus

GENERAL MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
MALAPPURAM
 
Complaint Case No. CC/118/2020
( Date of Filing : 09 Jun 2020 )
 
1. SURYA GAYATHRI
ALPAARA HOUSE PUZHAKATIRI PO 679321
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. GENERAL MANAGER
KVR AUTOMAL PRIVATE LTD AP 12 618A PALAKKAD KOZHIKODE HIGHWAY ANGADIPURAM 679321
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. MOHANDASAN K PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. MOHAMED ISMAYIL CV MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. PREETHI SIVARAMAN C MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

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.

  1. Whether the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice or deficiency in service towards the complainant.
  2. 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:-

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. MOHANDASAN K]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. MOHAMED ISMAYIL CV]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. PREETHI SIVARAMAN C]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.