Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/613

MANAGING DIRECTOR TVS PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAISON - Opp.Party(s)

S LAILA

21 Nov 2016

ORDER

              KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.613/2015

JUDGMENT DATED 21/11/2016

  (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.561/2009 dt  14/10/2014 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur.)

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                       :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1.  Managing Director,

T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons Pvt. Ltd.

Mannuthy Junction, P.O.Ollukara, Thrissur.

 

2.  Manager, T.V Sundram Iyengar &

Sons Pvt. Ltd., Mannuthy Junction, P.O.

Ollukara, Thrissur.

(By Adv:   S. Laila)                    

                        Vs

RESPONDENT:

            Jaison, Thekkiniyath House,

Kunnathupeedika, Kottekkad,

Kuttur P.O.,Thrissur.

                                                                       

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          The impugned order passed in C.C.No.561/2009 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur is challenged by the opposite parties, the appellant herein.

          2.  The facts leading to the case is with regard to the interest on the advance amount already remitted to the opposite parties.  On19/01/2009 and on 02/02/2009 the complainant had given Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.47,000/- as advance for the  purchase of a vehicle of Asok Leyland.  The complainant arranged finance with Magna Financial Corporation Ltd.  The financier agreed to pay 75% of the total cost of the vehicle as loan.  When the cost of the vehicle came down to Rs.7,66,000/- the financier refrained from giving the amount of 75% of the value of the vehicle as agreed upon earlier.  Thereafter another quotation for Rs.7,66,000/- was received and again the value of the vehicle came down to Rs.6,80,000/- the financier repeatedly refrained from giving the amount.  The complainant completed all the formalities for availing the finance and the complainant had incurred Rs.9,500/ and again Rs.12,000/- was demanded by Finance Company.  This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and the complaint is filed for the interest for the amount of Rs.1,72,000/- from the date of payment along with a compensation of Rs.50,000/-  and cost of proceedings from the opposite parties.

          3.  The opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  There is no deficiency  in  service  on the  part  of  opposite

 

 

parties and the opposite parties were unnecessarily made a party to the proceedings and the complaint is to be dismissed on the ground of mis-jointer of unnecessary parties.  It is admitted that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- + additional amount of Rs.47,000/- as advance towards booking of an Asok Leyland vehicle.  It is on the part of the complainant who subsequently cancelled the booking order and demanded refund of the amount paid and the opposite parties refunded the amount of Rs.1,72,000/-  The amount paid by the finance company amounting to Rs.5,12,934/- was also refunded to the finance company.  There is no merit or basis in the claim of the complainant.  The booking of the vehicle is based on the terms and conditions of the agreement and the advance amount will be refunded with no liability for interest.  The opposite parties, have no liability to pay interest. 

          4.  The District Forum allowed the complaint wherein the opposite parties were declared exparte.

5. Though notice was issued to the Respondent/Complainant the notice returned with the endorsement ‘intimation served on 14/10’ and 15/10’ and thereafter returned to this Commission.

          6.  It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the respondent paid Rs.1,25,000/- on 19/01/2009 and Rs.47,000/- on 02/02/2009 as advance for purchase of the vehicle.  When the actual cost of the vehicle came down from the quoted amount, the financiers refrained from giving the 75% of the quoted value of the vehicle which resulted in the demand for Rs.12,000/- as expenses in excess from the respondent. By that time the respondent had almost completed formalities.  The respondent abandoned the idea of purchasing the vehicle and demanded the advance amount given to the opposite parties.  Immediately the amount of Rs.1,72,000/- given to this Appellant was returned without any interest.  The respondent had to pay Rs.9,500/- to the finance company which was claimed from this appellant and filed this complaint.  It is argued that the advance amount will be refunded with no liability of interest as per the terms and conditions of booking the vehicle.  The respondent had not suffered any  irreparable loss or mental agony as the respondent himself withdrew from the purchase of the vehicle.  The appellant already paid Rs.1,72,000/- which was acknowledged by the respondent.  The counsel also pointed out that the respondent had not produced any document to show that he had paid Rs.9,500/- to the finance company.  While arguing the counsel pointed out that the District Forum without considering the contentions and documents produced along with affidavit by the opposite parties, passed the impugned order and made the appellants exparte and allowed the complaint which is not sustainable.  No deficiency in service can be attributed upon the appellants as the amount was refunded according to the terms and conditions vide Exbt: B4, Condition No.6.  The respondent had already signed the terms and conditions and the respondent cannot go beyond the agreement entered into between the parties and the appeal is to be allowed in favour of the appellant.

          7.  Heard in detail and had gone through the documents.  It is an undisputed fact that the respondent paid the advance amount of Rs.1,72,000/- to the opposite parties for the purchase of Asok Leyland vehicle on withdrawal from the purchase of the vehicle by the respondent.  The appellant refunded the advance amount without interest as per the terms and conditions evidenced by Exbt: A4.  It is the allegation of the respondent that he had incurred an amount of Rs.9,500/- as expenses for applying loan from the financiers.  Nothing is on evidence to show that the respondent paid the amount to the financiers.  As per the order of the District Forum the opposite parties were made exparte.  On going through the records we find that the opposite parties filed version and affidavit along with Exbts: B1 to B4, whereas the documents Exbts: B1 to B4 were missing from the file.  The Forum Below has not taken into consideration the version and affidavit and made them exparte.  However, the appellants produced the documents at the appellate stage and on going through the documents we find that the terms and conditions - clause No.6, clearly states that no interest is payable for the advance payment made towards cost of vehicle.  The terms and conditions were signed by both parties and we are of the considered view that the respondent is not entitled for interest for the payment made to the appellants.  Moreover, the respondent himself withdrew from the purchase of the vehicle.

          In the result, appeal allowed setting-aside the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

A. RADHA          :         MEMBER

 

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR   :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

                      

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

     DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE,

VAZHUTHACAUD   

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.613/2015

JUDGMENT DATED 21/11/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.