O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                    The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

                    2. The case of the Complainant is as follows.  On 25/01/2014 the complainant purchased a Mahendra Centura Model Bike for an amount of Rs.56,000/- from the opposite party.  On the same day the complainant remitted to Rs.14,500/- as  a part of the price value and for the remaining amount, the complainant availed a loan from the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant remitted the loan amount to 2^nd opposite party up to 03/06/2014 without any arrears.  At the time of the purchase of the said vehicle, the opposite party had given assurance of taking the registration on his risk.  It is contented that even after the complainant demanded the opposite party for the complying the said assurance the 1^st opposite party failed to do it.  According to the complainant, due to the failure of the opposite party with regard to the non-registration of the vehicle, the vehicle is kept in the shed of the complainant’s house.  It is further contented that the act of the 1^st opposite party is clear deficiency in service under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and the opposite party is liable to the complainant.  Hence the complainant, approach this Forum for a direction to register the vehicle by 1^st opposite party or for the purchase of a new vehicle and for getting compensation, cost etc.etc from the 1^st opposite party.

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance.  The opposite party 1^st & 2^nd appeared before the Forum but 2^nd opposite party alone file his version. Even though the 1^st opposite party has got so many opportunities to file their version they did not turn up.

          4. The version of 2^nd opposite party is as follows:  According to the 2^nd opposite party this case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is also contented that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case.  This contesting opposite party admitted that the complainant availed a loan from 2^nd opposite party.  According to them, the complaint has not seek any relief from 2^nd opposite party or they committed any deficiency in service against the complainant.  According to the 2^nd opposite party he is not liable to the complainant.  Hence, the 2^nd opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

           5. This Forum peruse the complaint, version of 2^nd opposite party and the records available before the Forum and framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the case is maintainable?

2. Whether 1^st opposite party is committed any deficiency in service

     as alleged by the complainant?

3. Whether 2^nd opposite party can be exonerated from all the charges  

     leveled against him?

4. Regarding relief and costs?

    6.  In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination.  He is examined as PW1 and marked Ext. A1 series in his favour. 2^nd opposite party along cross-examination PW1 but opposite party in this case did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in their favour.  Ext.A1 series dated 25/01/2014 is the copy of the temporary receipt issued in favour of the complainant by 1^st opposite party and another receipt issued on 17/01/2014 by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. After the completion of the evidence we heard the complainant and 2^nd opposite party.  Though the 1^st opposite party appeared before the Forum he did not turn up at the time of trial.

      7. Point No.1:  The 2^nd opposite party in this case seriously contested that the complainant has no locus standi to file this case before this Forum and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case.  According to the 2^nd opposite party their place of business is not with in the jurisdiction of this Forum and their office is situated at Ernakulam District.  When we consider the evidence adduced by PW1 in this case, it is clear that the complainant purchased the vehicle from 1^st opposite party and from the 2^nd opposite party the complainant availed loan for the purchase of the vehicle.  Though the 2^nd opposite party pleaded that they have no office at Pandalam they have miserably failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their claim.  Hence it is so clear to find that the case is maintainable before this Forum and this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the case as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  Point No.1 found accordingly.

    8.  Point No.2 to 4: For the sake or convenience, we would like to consider point No.2 to 4 together.  The complainant as PW1 deposed that he purchased the Maruti Centura Model Bike from 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.56,000/- on 25/01/2014.  At the time of purchase, the complainant paid Rs. 14,500/- directly to the complainant and he availed a loan from 2^nd opposite party for the remaining amount.  This pleading raised by the PW1, is also admitted by the contesting 2^nd opposite party. The next question to be considered is whether 2^nd opposite party has committed any deficiency as alleged by PW1 in this case.  As stated earlier, it is evident to see that 2^nd opposite party given loan to the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle.  With regard to loan transaction or with regard to the re-payment of the loan there is no dispute seen arise between 2^nd opposite party and complainant. It is also to see that the complainant has not raised any deficiency in service against 2^nd opposite party either in their complaint or in their proof affidavit.  Therefore, we can come to a conclusion to the effect that 2^nd opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and he has to be exonerated from all allegations.

                   9. When we appreciate the whole evidence of this case we have to be bear in mind that the 1^st opposite party in this case delivered the vehicle to the complainant with an assurance to take the registration by them.  But it is also clear that 1^st opposite party has not complied the assurance given to the complainant at the time of purchase and as a result the newly purchased vehicle was kept in the shed of complainants house.  It is pertinent to see that the complainant already paid an amount of Rs. 56,000/- for the vehicle and the same is simply keeping in his shed. Considering this fact of the case                1^st opposite party alone is responsible for the difficulties of the complainant with regard to the use of this vehicle.   It is true that even though the 1^st opposite party appeared before the Forum in person and applied for version but 2^nd opposite party failed to file any version in their favour or did not turn up at the time of trial.  Therefore, it is to see that evidence adduced by PW1 in this case against 1^st opposite party is unchallengeable as far as the said 1^st opposite party is concerned.

                   10. In the light of the above discussion, it can be inferred that 1^st opposite party is miserably failed to comply the assurance given by the complainant, for the registration of the vehicle.  The complainant is succeeded to prove the case against 1^st opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is allowable and 1^st opposite party is liable to the complainant.  Point No.2 to 4 is found accordingly.

   11.  In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. 1^st opposite party is directed to take necessary steps to register the vehicle and also directed to take the necessary insurance certificate in favour of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
2. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay a compensation of    Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant and a cost of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards.

3. If the 1^st opposite party is failed to comply the Order No.1 within

     the stipulated time the1^st opposite party is also directed to pay an

     amount of Rs.56,000/-  (Rupees Fifty Six Thousand only) to the   

     complainant as the price of  the vehicle  and the 1^st opposite party

     is also at liberty to take the  vehicle in question from  the

     complainant which was delivered on 25/01/2014.

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of December, 2016.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                         (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)               :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  : Rajan Varghese

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 series (2 Nos.) :  Copy of receipts dated 25.01.2014 and 17.01.2014

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil. 

                                                                                                (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Rajan Vargese, Kallummoottil Veedu, Kudassanadu.P.O,

          Poozhikkadu, Pandalam.        

     (2) The Manager, Infinite Motors, Chengannoor.

(3) The Manager,  Muthoot Capital Services, Pandalam.

(4) The Stock File.