By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President The case of complainant is that the complainant is a reputed and well known lawyer practising at Thrissur District Court and various other courts through out Kerala. The petitioner was the registered owner of KL-8-U-9395 TATA INDICA Car wished to purchase a new black coloured TATA INDICA TURBO Car and approached Koyenco Autos Pvt. Ltd. on 20/8/06 for purchasing the same. The officials of Koyenco told the complainant that black coloured Tata Indica Turbo Car is readily available with them for sale and they also assured to deliver within 10 days. Believing the words the complainant decided to purchase the said vehicle and enquired regarding the finance of the said vehicle. The complainant intended to avail a car loan to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. The officials of Koyenco introduced one of the Marketing Executives of the respondent company for the purpose of availing loan from respondent company. He met complainant at his office on 22/8/06 and discussed the terms and conditions for availing loan and he assured that respondent company will sanction the loan within 3 days of execution of necessary documents. Upon that assurance the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- to Koyenco on 24/8/06 and booked the vehicle. As per the instructions of the marketing executive of the respondent company the complaint immediately made arrangements to obtain his bank balance sheet for the last 3 years with a copy of repayment track, 47 blank cheques of South Indian Bank, Ayyanthole branch etc. The complainant handed over all the above said documents to the marketing executive of 5th respondent on 25/8/06 at his office. The 47 blank cheques were duly signed and filled up by the complainant also handed over to him. He also handed over signed unfilled printed papers including hypothecation agreement, promissory note, sale receipts etc. The mode of repayment was fixed at the rate of Rs.4,900/- per month in 48 instalments. While the complainant handed over the documents to marketing executive of 5th respondent it was assured the complainant that loan for Rs.2,00,000/- will be sanctioned within 3 days and the above said vehicle will be handed to the complainant on or before 30/8/06. Upon the above said assurance the complainant sold his Tata Indica car bearing No.KL-8-U-9395 for a very nominal amount since he was under the impression that the new black colourer Tata Indica Turbo Car will be delivered to him on or before 30/8/06. He withdrew Rs.1,00,000/- from his bank deposit and upon the instructions of the marketing executive of 5th respondent paid Rs.24,000/- on 26/8/06 and Rs.75,000/- on 29/8/06 to Koyenco. The complainant was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 30/8/06. But the petitioner was shocked that the marketing executive of 5th respondent informed on 30/8/06 that respondent company has taken a decision not to provide loan to Advocates for purchasing cars. This decision is infact an insult to all members of legal profession. Hence the complaint. 2. The respondents called absent and set exparte. 3. In order to prove the case the complainant filed affidavit and Exhibits P1 to P9. 4. According to the complainant he was the registered owner of KL-8-U-9395 Tata Indica Car wished to purchase a new black coloured Tata Indica car and the dealers of Tata Indica car at Thrissur, Koyenco Autos assured to deliver the vehicle to the complainant within 10 days. So he made arrangements to get money as loan and such other arrangements to purchase a new vehicle. But the marketing executive of 5th respondent informed to the complainant that the company has taken a decision not to provide loan to Advocates for purchasing cars. According to the complainant, the complainant being a lawyer the act of respondent is an insult to him and also to all members of legal profession . He had suffered a lot since he was compelled to hire taxi for his day to day journeys as well as for distant journeys etc. Inspite of the fact that complainant had good repayment track, respondent failed to provide loan to complainant. This act of the respondent is unfair trade practice. 5. There is no evidence to the contrary. 6. In the result the complaint stands allowed and the respondents 1 to 6 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation along with cost Rs.500/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 13th day of September 2010.
| | [HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member | | 
