IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE     15^th   DAY OF  SEPTEMBER  2022

Present: -        Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

           Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

    CC.No.100/2021

Simon John V.,

S/o Yohannan V.C.,

Varuvila Veedu,

Thrippilazhikom, Kareepra Village,

Kottarakkara Taluk, Kollam.                                               :           Complainant

(By Adv.G.Chandrasekharan Pillai)

V/s

1.     Manager,

                    Zodiac Motors, Near Railway Station,

              Kottarakkara.

2.    Muhassal(Shanaf),

                  Kalluveettil Veedu,

                  Memannadi, Mannady P.O.,

            Kadampanad.                                                       :       Opposite parties

                                               ORDER

Sri. E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LLM,President

This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

The 1^st opposite party is the manager of Zodiac Motors, Kottarakkara and 2^nd opposite party is the purchaser of second hand super Splender Hero Honda Bike bearing No.Kl-02-V-6246 from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant is an     ex-service man.  Two bikes bearing No.KL-02-V 6246(Super Splender Hero Honda) and KL-31-B-1287( CD Delex Hero Honda) belonged to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party agreed to purchase the above two second hand bikes from the complainant for Rs.2000/- and 13,000/- respectively.  The complainant decided to purchase a new Honda Activa 125 Scooter for Rs.1,05,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party while effecting the sale of above two second hand vehicle.  The 1^st opposite party has agreed to give Rs.15000/- (2000+13000) set off from the value of new vehicle.  Accordingly  the complainant purchased the Honda Activa 125 Scooter and paid  the balance amount for Rs.90,000/- as the sale consideration of the above scooter after adjusting the value of the above two 2^nd hand bikes to the 1^st opposite party.  Thereafter the 1^st opposite party change the ownership of the vehicle bearing No.KL-31 B-1287 and sold the other Hero Honda bike bearing No.KL-02- V 6246  to the 2^nd opposite party.  At the time of exchanging the above vehicles the 1^st opposite party agreed to change the ownership of the 2^nd hand bikes in the name of himself or to the purchaser.  But against the above terms the ownership of  Hero Honda bike bearing No.Kl-02-6246  was not changed,  either in the name of the 1^st opposite party or in the name of the 2^nd opposite party who purchased it from the 1^st opposite party.  Now he got reliable information from Enath police station that the above bike involved in a motor accident.  He rushed the police station and enquired about the accident and thereupon it is understand that the 2^nd opposite party being the owner of the motor bike has got released same from the police station by putting his signature.  The complainant alleges that the non-changing of ownership of the above bike is against the terms of agreement and  deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the above act of the 1^st opposite party has caused much mental agony to the complainant that he is also of the view that the 1^st opposite party has cheated the complainant without complying with the  terms of the exchange of the vehicles.  There is chance of causing much financial loss and mental agony in future due to the nonperformance of the terms of the agreement by  the 1^st opposite party.  According to the complainant from the date of purchase of the bike the 1^st opposite party is responsible for the accident caused by the said vehicle.  But as the 1^st opposite party has not changed its ownership from his name he received notice from authorities and the complainant is also responsibilities for the police cases involving the above bike.  In the circumstances the complainant prays to award compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and also to pass a declaration that as the opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not changing the name of ownership, the 1^st opposite party is liable for all police cases involving the above vehicle.  The complainant further prays to award costs of the proceedings also. 

Though notice was served on the opposite parties they remained exparte.

Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and got marked Exts.A1 to A4 documents.

The learned counsel for the complainant has filed notes of argument and also advanced oral arguments.

The complainant has filed Proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the averments in the complaint.  Ext.A1 is the original receipt voucher dated 25.06.2020 indicating that the complainant has purchased one Activa 125 scooter for Rs.86520/- from the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A2 is a consent deed executed by 2^nd opposite party in the name of complainant indicating that he purchased Hero Honda Super Splender bike bearing No.Kl-02-V 6246 belongs to the complainant on 24.06.2020 that he was the owner of the said bike till 23.10.2020. and he is undertaking all liabilities arising  out of the use of the vehicle  and also undertakes  the responsibility of the cases arising out of the use of the vehicle.  Ext.A3 is the sale agreement dated 20.06.2020 executed between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A4 is another sale agreement executed on 24.06.2020 between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party.

The main prayer in the complaint is against 1^st opposite party.  According to the complainant on 24.06.2020 he has sold the two second hand Hero Honda bikes  bearing No.Kl-02-V-6246 and KL-31 B-1287  to the 1^st opposite party and later the 1^st opposite party sold one of the above two bikes ( bearing No. Kl-02-V-6246) to the 2^nd opposite party.  However the materials available on record including Ext.A2 to A4 documents would not indicate that the complainant has sold the above vehicle to the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant has sold the above vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A1 is only a cash voucher indicating that the complainant has purchased one Activa 125 scooter from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant has no case that the 1^st opposite party has committed any negligence or deficiency in service in respect of the sale of the Activa 125 scooter as per Ext.A1 document. 

Even if it is considered  that the complainant has sold the above two vehicle to the 1^st opposite party for Rs.2,000/- and 13,000/- (15,000) altogether, the latter is the purchaser by paying consideration and complainant is the seller of the above two 2^nd hand vehicles.  Therefore the complainant would not come within the definition of a consumer and the 1^st opposite party would come within the definition of service provider as define U/s 2(7), 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.  Therefore the case against the 1^st opposite party will not stand at all. 

The 2^nd relief sought for in the complaint is compensation for the mental agony by the complainant as the opposite parties have not changed the ownership of the motor bike from the name of the complainant.  It is true that Ext.A2 to A4 documents would indicate that the complainant has sold the above two motor bikes to the 2^nd opposite party on 24.06.2020 and 20.06.2020 respectively and the 2^nd  opposite party was using the motor bike bearing No.Kl-02-V 6246 from 24.06.2020 till 23.10.2020.  The 2^nd opposite party has undertaken to bear of the responsibilities of  cases involving the above vehicle.  Though the complainant would allege in the complaint as well as in the proof affidavit that the motor bike bearing No.Kl-02-V-6246 involved in an accident after it was purchased by the 2^nd opposite party within the limit of Enath Police Station and he came to know about this fact and the 2^nd opposite party got released  the vehicle from the police station as its registered owner.  But there is absolutely no material such as copy of FIR or GD entry indicating that the above motor bike was involved in any accident as claimed by the complainant.  There is also no material to hold that the above bike was  standing in the name of the complainant as on the date of the alleged accident.  In the circumstances the chance of sustaining any financial loss or mental agony to the complainant as claimed is baseless.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the 1^st or 2^nd opposite party.  If at all the complainant feels that the 2^nd hand motor bikes are still standing in his name he has to approach the RT Authorities and got it removed from his name by showing the sale letters and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has nothing to do with the change of ownership of the sold vehicle.

On evaluating the entire materials available on record we find no merit in the complaint and same is only to be dismissed.

In the result complaint stands dismissed.

No costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the      day of    15^th    September 2022.  

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

Stanly Harold:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                                                    Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1            : The original receipt voucher dated 25.06.2020

Ext.A2            : Consent deed executed by 2^nd opposite party

Ext.A3            :  The sale agreement dated 20.06.2020 executed between the complainant and

   the 2^nd opposite party.

Ext.A4            : Another sale agreement executed on 24.06.2020 between the complainant

                          and the 2^nd opposite party.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil