Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

353/2002

Sosamma Mathew - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD - Opp.Party(s)

V.K Mohan Kumar

15 Oct 2008

ORDER


Thiruvananthapuram
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud
consumer case(CC) No. 353/2002

Sosamma Mathew
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

MD
Govinda Kumar K
M/s T.V Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd
Manager
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A 2. Smt. S.K.Sreela 3. Sri G. Sivaprasad

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P.No. 353/2002 Filed on 12.08.2002 Dated : 15.10.2008 Complainant: Sosamma Mathew, Thekkedeth Traders, Ulloor, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. (By adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar) Opposite parties: 1.The Premier Automobiles Ltd., Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Kurla, Mumbai represented by its Managing Director. 2.M/s T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd, 5/2206, Mavoor Road, Calicut. 3.M/s T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Karamana P.O, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Manager. 4.Govindakumar. K, M/s T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Karamana P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 16.01.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 06.10.2008, the Forum on 15.10.2008 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER The complainant booked a Premier 1.38 D car manufactured by the 1st opposite party Premier Automobiles Ltd by paying Rs. 20000/- as demand draft bearing No. 703656 dated 07.01.1994 issued by the Catholic Syrian Bank, Thiruvananthapuram. The D.D was handed over to the 4th opposite party in the office of 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party on business arrangement between 1st and 2nd opposite party have received the amount as the booking amount of the car in the name of the complainant vide order booking form No. 75906. The complainant was issued receipt cum priority card No. 11011 with registration No. 01616. Since the complainant was not allotted the car booked in the near period, the complainant adopted to cancel the booking and got the booking amount. As per clause 15 of the terms and conditions and instructions agreed upon by the opposite parties, the opposite parties are to refund the advance booking amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of cancellation. But the opposite party was not ready to refund the booking amount to the complainant. The opposite parties have an obligation to refund the booking amount to the complainant in which they have totally failed. The opposite parties have hence committed gross deficiency in service by not repaying the advance booking amount. So the complainant prays for refund of the amount with interest, compensation and cost. The 1st opposite party remains exparte. Opposite parties 2 to 4 contended that the transaction is true, but they have no liability. As per the terms and conditions of the booking, the 1st opposite party is to reimburse the booking advance to the complainant. Opposite parties 2 to 4 are only the authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party and is in no manner connected with the reimbursement of advance amount. Hence they prayed for exonerating them from the liability. The following points are raised for trial: (i)Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties? (ii)Whether the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable? (iii)Reliefs and costs. In this case, the complainant has produced sufficient documents to prove her case. The documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the photocopy of receipt cum priority card. Through this document the complainant has succeeded to prove her case. This document is the receipt of Rs. 20,000/- received by the 1st opposite party from the complainant as advance car booking amount. Ext. P2 is the copy of notice sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party, Premier Automobiles Ltd for demanding the repayment of advance booking amount dated 22.01.2002. Ext. P3 is the acknowledgement card signed by the 1st opposite party. The complainant is entitled to get the advance booking amount from the 1st opposite party. The right of the complainant to cancel the booking is not disputed. The complainant is therefore entitled to the refund of the amount. As per clause 15 of the terms and conditions and instructions agreed upon by the opposite parties, the opposite parties are to refund the advance booking amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of cancellation. But the opposite parties have failed in performing their part. The opposite parties have a contractual obligation to refund the booking amount to the complainant in which they have totally failed. The opposite parties have committed gross deficiency in service by not repaying the advance booking amount. On the facts it is clear that the amount has been remitted in the name of the 1st opposite party and therefore other opposite parties have no liability. In the result, an order is passed as follows: The 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant with 9% annual interest from 18.07.1997 till the date of realization and also the 1st opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost. Opposite parties 2 to 4 are exempted from liabilities. Time for compliance two months. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th October 2008. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P.No. 353/2002 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : NIL II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Photocopy of receipt cum priority card P2 - Copy of notice sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party dated 22.01.2002. P3 - Acknowledgement card signed by the 1st opposite party. III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS : NIL PRESIDENT




......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad