FA 224/2008 against C. C. 7/2007 on the file of the District Forum, Nalgonda.

Between :

Gali Shayam sundar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy

Age 48 years, Occ : Business, R/o Haliya

Village of Anumula Mandal, Nalgonda District   Appellant/complainant

And

M/s. Sri Krishna Motors

Saga Road, Miryalguda town

And Mandal, Nalgonda District,

Rep. by its Proprietor                              .. Respondent/opposite party

Counsel for the appellant           :           M/s. G. Sudha

Counsel for the Respondent      :           Mr. V. Venkkat Ramana

CORAM    :   

SRI SYED ABDULLAH                  ..             HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

             SRI R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO         .. HON’BLE MEMBER

Tuesday,  the Third Day of August, Two Thousand Ten

Oral order :   ( as per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member )

********

The unsuccessful complainant in CC 7/2007 on the file of the District Forum, Nalgonda filed this appeal questioning the dismissal of the complaint filed for recovery of Rs.2,035/-  along with interest @ 12% pa from 03.02.2006 and for grant of compensation of Rs.5000/- on the ground of deficiency in service.

The facts of the case are that on 03.02.2006 the complainant has purchased Hero Honda  Glamour Motor Bike from the opposite party  showroom for which R.50,604/-  was collected  inclusive of life tax  and insurance. So also,  collected handling charges  and temporary registration charges. Temporary registration charges are only Rs.15/-.  While so, Rs.450/- was collected.   Similarly, permanent registration charges are Rs.160/- but collected Rs.520/-. The opposite party also not delivered the papers pertaining to the vehicle.  The complainant has to go round the opposite parties for 10 months.  There was delay in getting the vehicle registered.  So the complainant had to  pay rs.100/- extra.   The complainant suffered mental agony  on account of the  omissions and commission which amounts to deficiency in service. So the opposite parties to be directed to pay Rs.2,035/- with interest  from 03.02.2006 to ay compensation of Rs.5000/-.

 The opposite party filed its version admitting that the complainant had purchased Motor bike but denied payment of Rs.50.604/- or collection of any extra amount as stated.  It is further stated that Rs.43,499/- ws only collected inclusive of the extra fittings for which 3 receipts were given on 03.02.2006, 14.02.2006 and 20.12.006 were given.  Details which are mentioned on the back side of the invoice were not collected. Whatsoever that amounts were collected for which  receipts were issued. Taking advantage  of some particulars noted on the reverse of the invoice, the complainant filed this complaint so as to extract the  amount.

During enquiry, the complainant along with evidence affidavit filed Ex. A-1 to A-10  and the opposite party along with evidence affidavit filed Ex. B-1.

After going through the evidence on record, the District Forum gave finding that in the absence of any documentary proof to show that the figures mentioned on the reverse of Ex. A-9 cannot be given any weight  and consideration and thereby held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

Point for consideration is,  whether the impugned order suffers from any factual and legal infirmity ?

Ex B-1 shows that the first opposite party had received Rs.35,676/- from the Bank  which was financed for the purchase  of the vehicle  for which Ex. A-8 receipt was passed.  Apart from it, the complainant paid Rs.7064/-on 03.02.2006, again another sum of Rs.759/- on 29.12.006, so, the total amount comes to Rs.43,499/- simply basing on  Ex. A-9  figures showing  calculation of Rs.645/-, Rs.400/- Rs, 4,370/- , Rs.1140/- and Rs.520/- in total Rs.7,075/-. the complainant claims alleging that excess amount was collected.  A perusal of Ex. A-9 sows that the particular noted on the back side of Ex. A-9 are in no way concerned  with the amounts collected or paid. Any prudent person would insist for passing a separate receipt.  When Ex. A-9 receipt was issued for R.7064/- only, it is not known how it can be said that the additional sum was paid. The claim is based on surmises.   So after analyzing factual aspects on the basis of the evidence on record, the District Forum has rightly allowed  that there was no evidence  on the part of the opposite parties.  The appeal is devoid of merits.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 17.05.2007 passed by the District Forum, Nalgonda in CC 7/2007. But, in the circumstances of the case,  no order as to costs.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/- MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                                    Dt; 03.08.2010.