Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/441/2022

Sudharshan New Royal Cars Malligai St., Ellis Nagar Madurai 10 - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.Sekar 158 Subramaniapuram Namakkal District and another - Opp.Party(s)

C.Suraj

30 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                    BEFORE :        Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                    PRESIDENT

                                  Thiru R   VENKATESAPERUMAL             MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.441/2022

(Against order in CC.NO.38/2019 on the file of the DCDRC, Namakkal)

 

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

Sudharshan

M/s. New Royal Cars                                                M/s. C. Suraj

Mallikai Street, Ellis Nagar                                          Counsel for

Madurai -10                                                    Appellant / 1^st Opposite party

 

                                                        Vs.

1.     M. Sekar

        S/o. P. Muthusamy

        158, Subramaniapuram

        Nadarajapuram, 4^th Street                             Served called absent

        Namakkal District                                    1^st Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.     Subramanian Muthiah

        S/o. Muthiah Subramani

        C4, Ashwin Flat

        24, Vembuli Amman Kovil Street

        KK Nagar West, Chennai - 73              2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd opposite party

 

          The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint as against the 1^st opposite party. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.11.7.2022 in CC. No.38/2019.

 

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.      The 1^st opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

2.       The parties shall be referred as per the ranking before the District Commission in the original complaint.

 

3.       The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant after seeing an advertisement in th website, approached the 1^st opposite party for the purchase of a Black colour TATA Safari Car 2009 model  bearing Regn.No.BB7300.  The 1^st opposite party offered the said vehicle for a sum of Rs.275000/-.  Therefore, the complainant, on 16.3.2017 had paid a sum of Rs.10000/- as advance and the balance sum of Rs.265000/- was paid on 25.3.2017 alongwith a sum of Rs.6000/- towards commission.  Thus a total sum of Rs.281000/- had been paid by the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party had entrusted the original RC book, T.O Form, and Delivery Receipt to the complainant.   But the vehicle which stood in the name of the 2^nd opposite party, was not changed in the name of the appellant/complainant by the 1^st opposite party.  While so, the said car, after having driven for 20 Kms., got struck all of a sudden on 25.3.2017.  Inspite of several attempts, the car could not be rectified.  Therefore, the said car was entrusted to the mechanic of the 1^st opposite party, viz. Mr.Sundar, and the same has been lying in the mechanic shed of Mr.Sundar till date.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for the refund of the amount paid @ Rs.281000/- alongwith interest @18% p.a, and compensation of Rs.10 lakhs towards the compensation for the loss sustained, and Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation for mental agony.  

 

4.       The opposite parties, though served, remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party, and had directed the 1^st opposite party to refund Rs.2,81,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and cost of Rs.19000/-  The complaint as against the 2^nd opposite party was dismissed.   Aggrieved over the order impugned, the 1^st opposite party had filed this appeal. 

 

5.       The learned counsel for the appellant/1^st opposite party had submitted      that after inspection with his mechanic and after test drive only, the complainant had purchased the car.  The appellant/ 1^st opposite party is only a second hand car seller. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/ 1^st opposite party.  The non-appearance before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton.  If an opportunity is provided, the 1^st opposite party shall have a fair chance of succeeding the case.  Thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit. 

 

6.   1^st Respondent/ complainant, remained absent before this commission to put forth his submission.  The complaint against the 2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd opposite party was dismissed.  We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

 

7.       The learned counsel for the appellant argued, that an opportunity, which was denied by the District Forum, may be given to the 1^st opposite party, by remanding the case, for fresh disposal, by setting aside the exparte order, which we are unable to deny, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Eventhough on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, accordingly by way of order dt.19.1.2023, we have directed the appellant/ 1^st opposite party to deposit a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission, on or before 25.1.2023, which was complied with.  Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 

8.  Since the 1^st Respondent/ Complainant had not filed any appeal against the order impugned and the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party also dismissed, based on the available documents and the documents if any filed by the appellant/ 1^st opposite party, the matter can be decided afresh.

 

9.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Namakkal in C.C.No.38/2019 dt.11.7.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Namakkal, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.  

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Namakkal on 27.2.2023, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellant/1^st opposite party shall file not only the vakalat, but also the written version, proof affidavit, and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months, according to law on merit.   

The amount deposited, by the appellant, shall abide the order of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.

 

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                         R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT