BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.287/11
Dated this the 27th day of September 2012.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt. Jayasree Kallat, M.A. : Member
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
J. Prajithlal. Vaidooryam, Pothencheri Thazham, }
P.O. Pokkunnu, Kozhikode-673 007. } Complainant
1. Manager, Hajaj Auto Finance Limited, IInd Floor, }
K.V.R. Building, Chakkorathkulam, Kannur Road, Kozhikode. } Opposite parties
2. K.P. Raman Nair, K.V.R. Motors, }
Chakkorathkulam, Kannur Road, Kozhikode. }
ORDER
By G. Yadunadhan, President:
The petition was filed on 25-7-2011. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had availed a loan from the first opposite party for the purpose of purchasing a motor cycle from the second opposite party. The total value of the vehicle is Rs.40010/-. Out of that the loan amount Rs.29100/-, balance amount of Rs.10910/- paid by cash. The first opposite party had given an advertisement regarding the selling of vehicle published in Mathrubhoomi Daily that the interest of the vehicle loan was 6.99%. But while closing the loan it is learnt that the interest of the said vehicle loan was 10.3%. This fact was intimated to the opposite party-2 by writing but not replied so far. This is a clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite party-1 and 2. Therefore complainant is seeking relief against opposite party-1 and 2 directing them to repay the excess amount already been collected from the complainant and fixed interest rate of 6.99% as per the terms and also pay a compensation.
Opposite party-1 after serving notice called absent and set exparte. Opposite party-2 entered in appearance and filed their version stating that the complainant is hopelessly time barred as far as the allegations leveled against this opposite party is concerned. The Bajaj Plantinum Motor Bike was purchased by the complainant on 21-9-2006. While selling the vehicle to the complainant this opposite party has charged higher price and other service charges are not true. As per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act the complainant should have filed the complaint within two years from the date of the cause of action. This complaint is seen filed on 11-7-2011, means after expiry of two years . So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Since the same was filed beyond the limitation period. It is true that the complainant had purchased Bajaj Plantinum Motor Cycle from the second opposite party on 21-9-2006. The complainant had paid Rs.40090/- to the second opposite party towards the price and other expenses of the vehicle. The price of the vehicle was as decided by the manufacturer, M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited. The tax charged were as fixed by the insurance company. The extra amount charged by the second opposite party was towards the registration of the vehicle. This was the expenditure incurred by them for getting the vehicle registered and was the same amount charged from the other customers also. Here it is to be remembered that the second opposite party like any other dealers of the vehicles are getting the vehicle registered by engaging agents. The allegation of the complainant that the second opposite party had charged excess amount from his is absolutely incorrect and is denied. The advertisement is for the vehicles sold during the festival season. The complainant had not purchased on that season The R.C. book repossessed after a legal proceedings is not at all correct. The loan provided by the first opposite party as per the loan agreement executed by the complainant and the first opposite party. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of second opposite party in the matter of the sale of the vehicle. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Points for consideration (1) Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party? If so what is the relief and costs?
The complainant was continuously absent for the last four consecutive postings. While perusing the complaint no documents produced by the complainant to substantiate their case. So it is posted for oral evidence here also no affidavit was seen filed or not appeared personally before this Fora. More over opposite party stated in their version that the cause of action arose on 2006. The complaint is filed on 2011. So under Consumer Protection Act 1986 any complaint should have filed within two years from the date of cause of action. In absence of evidence from the complainant the date mentioned in the petition itself speaks the cause of action arose on 2006 itself. Therefore the complaint is filed beyond the limitation period. In view of this the complaint is liable to be dismissed with lack of jurisdiction.
Pronounced in the open court this the 6th day of September 2012.
Date of filing:25.07.2011.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
