IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 53/2013 (Filed on 24.04.2013)
Between:
M.K. Raghavan Pillai,
Mannuveetttil Kizhakkethil,
Thumpamon Thazhom. P.O.,
Pin – 689 632,
Kozhencherry Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist. …. Complainant
And:
1. Manager,
Popular Vehicles & Services,
M.C. Road, S.H. Mount,
Kottayam.
2. Manager,
Popular Vehicles & Services,
Kunnithottathil Medows,
Near Collectorate,
T.K. Road, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. R. Sarathchandra Kumar) …. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Complainant’s case is that he had purchased a second hand Maruti 800 Car from the 1st opposite party. The said purchase was made on the basis of the 1st opposite party’s advertisement during April 2011. In the said advertisement, the 1st opposite party offered an MP III player free of cost to the purchasers who purchases second hand Maruti cars from them between 07.04.2011 to 10.04.2011. The said advertisement prompted the complainant for the purchase of a Maruti 800 car from the 1st opposite party and he selected one car and issued two cheques, viz.No.2017959 dated 07.04.2011 of Pandalam Treasury for Rs.1,10,000/- and cheque No.662246 dated 07.04.2011 for Rs.30,701/- of Federal Bank, Kulanada to the 1st opposite party on 07.04.2011 vide their receipt No.10344 and 10345. After receiving the said cheques the 1st opposite party told the complainant that the selected car will be delivered within 2 days after servicing. On the date of issue of the said cheque complainant has sufficient funds in his account for honouring the said cheques. The treasury cheque for Rs.1,10,000/- was not encashed due to some technical problems of the opposite party. The Federal Bank cheque for Rs.30,701/- was encashed by them on 14.04.2012. As the treasury cheque was not encashed which was intimated by the 1st opposite party, the complainant directly paid the cash to the 1st opposite party on 24.04.2011 and on that day itself the car was delivered by the opposite party. Though the complainant had issued the cheques on 07.04.2011 the delivery of the vehicle was made only on 25.04.2011 in spite of the complainant’s enquiries. Moreover as per the understanding between the complainant and opposite parties, the 1st opposite party has to change the registration of ownership in the name of the complainant at the cost of the complainant for which the 1st opposite party had collected Rs.1,000/- from the complainant as service charge. But they have not done the same. So the complainant himself had made arrangements for changing the registration. Further they have not given the MP III player to the complainant as per their advertisement. Further, it noticed that the steering cover of the car is seen missing at the time of delivery and hence complainant is compelled to buy a new steering cover by paying Rs.300/-. According to the complainant, the above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and hence the 1st opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties to give 12.5% interest for Rs.158/-, which is the interest of Rs.30,701/- from 11.04.2011 to 25.04.2011 and its interest at the rate of 12% from 26.04.2011 to till the realization and for the return of Rs.1,000/- the service charge collected by the opposite party and for the return of Rs.300/-, the cost of the steering cover along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- for denying the MP III player along with Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and other inconveniences sustained to the complainant.
3. In this case, opposite parties entered appearance and filed a common version with the following main contentions. According to the opposite parties, out of the two cheques issued by the complainant, cheque for Rs.1,10,000/- was not encashed and it was intimated to the complainant and the complainant paid the said cheque amount in cash directly on 25.04.2011. However, the cheque for Rs.30,701/- was encashed. After receiving the whole amount the car selected by the complainant was delivered to him. The delay in delivering the car occurred due to the non-receipt of the cash. The registration of the said car was made by the opposite parties along with 10 other cars delivered by the opposite parties to different purchasers. The delivery and sale of the complainant’s car was not within the dates published in their advertisement and hence the complainant has no right for the offers in the advertisement and hence he is not entitled to get the offers made by the opposite parties. The selected car was delivered in its as is where condition after conducting a normal service and the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction after giving a written undertaking that he had no complaints. This complaint is filed after a lapse of about 2 years in spite of his written under taking that he had no complaints. The 2nd opposite party is no way connected with transactions and 1st opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. The complainant’s allegations are false and frivolous and this complaint is not allowable and the opposite parties are not liable to the complainant. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
4. The evidence of this case consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A8. After closure of evidence, opposite parties filed their argument note and both sides were heard.
5. The Point:- The complainant’s allegations are that he purchased a second hand Maruti 800 Car from the 1st opposite party on the basis of an advertisement published by the 1st opposite party. As per the said advertisement, the 1st opposite party offered free MP III player for the purchases made between 07.04.2011 and 10.04.2011. Accordingly he selected a car and issued two cheques for Rs.1,40,709/- on 07.04.2011. Out of the two cheques, the cheque for Rs.1,10,000/- was not encashed by the opposite party and they intimated the same to the complainant. On getting the said intimation he paid the cheque amount in cash to the 1st opposite party on 25.04.2011. The other cheque for Rs.30,701/- was encashed by the opposite parties on 11.04.2011. The car was delivered on 25.04.2011. But opposite parties denied the offer of the MP III player by saying that the payment, sale and delivery of the car is not within the offer period. Further the steering cover seen at the time of the selecting the car found missed at the time of delivery which compelled the complainant to purchase a cover for Rs.300/- and the transfer of registration was not done by the opposite parties in spite of their offer for the same and in spite of collecting an amount of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant as service charges for the same. According to the complainant, he had issued the cheques on 07.04.2011 which is within their offer period and his account had sufficient balance for honouring the cheque and hence he is entitled to get the offered MP III player and opposite parties are liable to pay the cost of the steering cover and service charge collected from him, along with compensation as they have committed deficiency in service.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant adduced oral testimony as PW1 and produced 7 documents which are marked as Ext.A1 to A7 for the complainant’s. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the advertisement of the 1st opposite party regarding the offers for the purchase made between 7the April 2011 and 10th April 2011. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the cheque dated 07.04.2011 for Rs.1,10,000/- drawn from complainant’s A/c.No.PTSB 1826 of Pandalam Treasury savings bank in favour of the 1st opposite party. Ext.A3 is the photocopy of page No.10 and 11 of a passbook of A/c.No.PTSB No.2372 from 2nd April to 29th August. Ext.A4 is the photocopy of the receipt No. 10344 dated 07.04.2011 issued by 1st opposite party in the name of the complainant for the receipt of a treasury savings account cheque for Rs.1,10,000/-. Ext.A5 is the receipt No.10345 dated 07.04.2011 issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of the complainant for the receipt of a Federal Bank cheque for Rs.30,701/-. Ext.A6 is the photocopy of a receipt No. 10871 dated 25.04.2011 issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of the complainant for the receipt of Rs.1,10,000/-. Ext.A7 is the vehicle records dated 26.04.2011 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A8 is the copy of registration certificate in the name of the complainant in respect of the vehicle in question.
7. On the other hand as per the version of the opposite parties, their contention is that the allegations in the complaint are false and they have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. However, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. But they have filed an argument note and argued the matter and in the argument note it is stated that the cheque for Rs.1,10,000/- was not honoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the complainant.
8. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute regarding the transaction. The allegations of the complainant is that the MP III player offered by the 1st opposite party was not given to him though he had purchased the car within the offered period, by issuing cheques from his account having sufficient credit balance to honour the cheques and he was compelled to purchase a steering cover and compelled him to make the transfer of registration in his name due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties. The contention of the complainant is that he had sufficient credit balance in his account for honouring the cheques. In order to prove this aspect he had produced and marked the photocopy of the cheque in question as Ext.A2 and copy of the relevant page of the passbook as Ext.A3 for showing his credit balance on the date of issuing the cheque. But on a perusal of Ext.A2 cheque and Ext.A3 passbook it is seen that Ext.A2 cheque was drawn from his account number PTSB 1826 and whereas Ext.A3 passbook is related to account number PTSB 2372. On the basis of the credit balance seen in account number PTSB 2372, a cheque drawn from account number PTSB 1826 could not be honourned. Thus the complainant has failed to prove that he had sufficient credit balance in his account for honouring the said cheque on the date of its issue. Further in the absence of any other evidence to show that he had sufficient credit balance for honouring. Ext.A2 cheque, we cannot accept the contention of the complainant that he had paid the entire price of the car within time so as to get the benefits offered by the opposite parties. Moreover, the complainant also failed to adduce cogent evidence for proving that he had purchased the steering cover and had spent money for effecting the transfer of registration in his name in the registration certificate. Thus in all respects the complainant had failed to prove his case. That apart the inordinate delay (2 years less one day) in filing this complaint also goes to a negative presumption regarding the genuineness of the complainant’s allegation. Therefore, we find no merits in this complaint and is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 13th day of September, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : M.K. Raghavan Pillai
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the advertisement.
A2 : Photocopy of the cheque dated 07.04.2011 for Rs. 1,10,000/-.
A3 : Photocopy of page No.10 and 11 of a passbook of A/c. No.PTSB
No.2372 from 2.4 to 29.8.
A4 : Photocopy of the receipt No. 10344 dated 07.04.2011 for
Rs.1,10,000/- issued by 1st opposite party in the name of the
complainant.
A5 : Photocopy of receipt No.10345 dated 07.04.2011 for Rs. 30,701/-
issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A6 : Photocopy of a receipt No. 10871 dated 25.04.2011 for Rs. 1,10,000/-
issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A7 : Photocopy of the vehicle records dated 26.04.2011 issued by the 1st
opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A8 : Photocopy of registration certificate in the name of the complainant Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superitendent
Copy to:- (1) M.K. Raghavan Pillai, Mannuveetttil Kizhakkethil,
Thumpamon Thazhom. P.O., Pin – 689 632,
Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist. (2) Manager, Popular Vehicles & Services, M.C. Road,
S.H. Mount, Kottayam.
(3) Manager, Popular Vehicles & Services, Kunnithottathil-
Medows, Near Collectorate, T.K. Road, Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
