KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 27/2024
JUDGMENT DATED: 30.01.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 199/2023 of CDRC, Kasaragod)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- The Manager, Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd., Dealer Code: RO 02 (RO), Saidar Palli, Thalassery-670 102.
- Indus Motors Company, Kanhangad represented by its Manager, Mavungal, Post Anandasrama.
(By Adv. Suresh Kumar C.R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
George N.K., S/o Kora Thomas, Nellikka Kuzhiyil House, Elerithattu, West Elleri, Kasaragod.
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 199/2023 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (District Commission for short). The District Commission as per it's order dated 30.11.2023 had allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to refund Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) along with interest @ 9% from 11.07.2022, to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)as costs.
2. The complainant had filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the appellants with respect to the exchange of his vehicle with a new Maruti Dezire VXI car. The 2nd opposite party had sold out the old vehicle of the complainant without his consent and failed to supply a new vehicle within the stipulated time. According to him, on 27.06.2022 he had contacted the 2nd opposite party to exchange his vehicle with a new Maruti Dezire VXI. After discussion the 2nd opposite party had issued a receipt showing the purchase amount of the ECCO 5 Star AC car as Rs. 4,00,000/-. The complainant had booked a new Maruti Dzire VXI (taxi) on the same day itself. The opposite parties had issued a proforma invoice on the same day. The 2nd opposite party had assured the complainant to deliver the vehicle within two weeks from 27.06.2022 with an exchange bonus of Rs. 20,000/-. But later they evaded from supplying the new vehicle. The complainant had waited for more than six months. In the meantime, the opposite parties had sold out the old vehicle of the complainant and made a part payment in the Bank account of the complainant. After crediting a part of the sale consideration into the complainant’s account the opposite parties had misused the balance amount. They had forged the signature of the complainant in the sale letter. Later, the complainant had cancelled booking of the vehicle. He would attribute deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties and filed the complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
3. The opposite parties, though received the notice remained absent and hence the order was passed. According to the appellant, on 27.06.2022 the complainant had agreed to purchase a new Maruti Dezire VXI vehicle by exchanging his old vehicle after fixing the value of the old car as Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs only). An exchange bonus of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) was also offered to him. According to the appellants, the vehicle was ready, but the complainant had changed his mind to have a grey coloured vehicle. For satisfying the complainant the opposite parties had to book another vehicle and hence his seniority was changed. At the time of booking the complainant had informed the opposite parties that he wanted the vehicle to be used as a taxi. As per the Govt. norms all vehicles cannot be registered as taxi. When he was informed about the Govt. rules he changed his mind and proposed to purchase another car.
4. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are conducting business in various locations. There was no forgery as alleged. The District Commission has failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. When the choice of the customer changes after booking his seniority also will change. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants.
5. Heard the counsel for the appellants. Perused the order of the District Commission and the appeal memorandum.
6. The opposite parties, after receiving the notice had failed to file version within the statutory time limit. As per Sec. 38(3) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the opposite parties have to file their version within a period of 30 days after receiving the notice or such an extended period not exceeding 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Sub-section 3 stipulates that the District Commission has to proceed to settle the dispute by deciding the case on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. If the opposite party fails to file a version within the stipulated time he has to be set ex-parte and the case has to be decided on the basis of the evidence brought to the notice of the District Commission by the complainant. Here the appellants had failed to file their version before the District Commission and under such situation the only option available to the District Commission was to decide the case on the basis of the evidence let in by the complainant. The legal position in this regard has been settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757. The appellants cannot file version at a belated stage as the District Commission is having no authority to extend the period fixed to receive the version after the statutory period. Hence no purpose will be served by admitting the appeal as the appellants had failed to file version within the statutory period. Therefore we are inclined to dismiss the appeal.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal is ordered to be refunded on proper acknowledgment.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
