Kerala

Kollam

CC/08/324

Mohan Babu,s/o Haridas,Thodiyil House,Kaikkulangara,Kollam-13 - Complainant(s)

Versus

Joseph Cherson,Managing Director ,Hilton Hyundai And Three others - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jun 2009

ORDER


C.D.R.F. KOLLAM : CIVIL STATION - 691013
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::: KOLLAM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/324

Mohan Babu,s/o Haridas,Thodiyil House,Kaikkulangara,Kollam-13
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Joseph Cherson,Managing Director ,Hilton Hyundai And Three others
Manager
Sujeesh
Sreekumar(Thampi)
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

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.

ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

 

            This complaint for  an amount of Rs.10,000/- as the exchange offer and other reliefs.

 

The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

 

           The complainant was the registered owner of KL-02 M 6570 Maruiti 800.   On 20.2.2008 Sri. Sujesh, the Business exclusive of Hilton Hundai approached the complainant with an exchange offer Rs.10,000/- for a new Hundai Santro car and the value for Maruti 800 is fixed as Rs.70,000/- including exchange offer.  At the time of offer the 3rd opp.party insisted for the transfer of Maruruti 800 car into the name of 4th opp.party Sreekumar and on 22.2.2008 itself the complainant transferred his vehicle into name of 4th opp.party by accepting the value of Maruti 800 car as only Rs.60,000/-     On 13.3.2008 the complainant has effected the delivery of new Hundai Santo without availing the offer of Rs.10,000/-   On enquiry the 3rd opp.party has contempted that the Maruti 800 may not have been transferred before the delivery of new Hundai Santro, so the complainant is not entitled to get the exchange offer of Rs.10,000/-  The complainant has lodged his complaint before the 1st and 2nd opp.party.    But no positive reply has been so far delivered.    There is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.  Hence the complaint.

 

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

2.     Reliefs and costs

For the complainant PW.1 is examined.   Ext.P1 and P2 are marked.

 

Points: 1 and 2

 

          Opp.parties though  served with a notice, chose not to file their version disputing or denying the averments made in the complaint.  Opp.parties did not turn up to adduce any evidence at all

 

          We are carefully perused the complaint, affidavit and documents filed by the complainant.   As no evidence is adduced from the side of the opp.parties, we are constrained to rely upon the ex-parte evidence.  Ext.P1 and P2 shows that the opp.parties have committed deficiency in service.   Therefore the complainant is entitled to get relief.

 

          In the result the complaint is allowed.   The opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as the exchange offer.  Opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation.   The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

 

            Dated this the        day of June, 2009.

 

                                                                                  .

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. –Mohan Babu

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Booking order

P2. – Registration particulars