BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 22/06/2010

Date of Order : 25/10/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 356/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts leading to this complaint are :

On 19-01-2006, the complainant purchased a tempo traveller bearing Registration No. KL-7 AZ/5297 from one Mr. Suvarnakumar. The said Suvarnakumar had purchased the said vehicle by availing loan from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The loan amount was to be repaid in 48 instalments of Rs. 16,830/- each. The opposite parties agreed to take the insurance policy and the premium of the policy was included in the instalment amount. The premium amount collected was Rs. 750/- per month. Since there was delay in taking the policy, the opposite parties permitted the complainant to avail the policy at his expense. However, the entire instalments including the premium amount was paid by the complainant. In 2007, the opposite parties adjusted the premium amount in the subsequent instalment. But that was not reconed in the subsequent year. The complainant was entitled to get a total amount of Rs. 19,498/- towards premium amount. So, he did not pay the 48^th instalment of Rs. 14,510/-. Thus, the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 4,486/- from the opposite parties together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of the proceedings. Hence this complaint.

2. Version of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties :

The complainant is a stranger to the opposite parties and there has never been any independent transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties. The claim of the complainant that he had purchased vehicle from Mr. Suvarnakumar is not known to the opposite parties. As per the tenure of the agreement dated 10-10-2005 between Mr. Suvarnakumar and the opposite parties, Mr. Suvarnakumar was precluded from transferring the vehicle without the consent of the opposite parties. As per the agreement, the 1^st 36 instalments payable were Rs. 16,830/- and the remaining 12 instalments payable were Rs. 14,510/- each. The account of Mr. Suvarnakumar was settled on 10-09-2009. It is the duty of the owner of the vehicle to take insurance policy on time. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the complainant.

3. In spite of service of notice from this Forum, the 3^rd opposite party did not care to attend the proceedings in this Forum for reasons best known to them. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. Witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1. Heard the complainant, who appeared in person and the counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

4. The points that emanated for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of an amount of Rs. 4,486/- from the opposite parties?

2. Compensation and costs of the proceedings?

5. Point No. i. :- According to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, the complainant is a stranger to them, they have only entered into a loan transaction with Mr. Suvarnakumar. During evidence, DW1 the witness for the opposite parties categorically admitted that since 10-04-2005, they had been collecting 46 instalments from the account of the complainant and Ext. A2 account statement of the complainant has been issued by them. Moreover, Ext. A1 agreement between the complainant and Mr. Suvarnakumar goes to show that the complainant had purchased the vehicle involved in the hire purchase agreement. So, the contention of the opposite parties to the effect that the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint is unsustainable.

6. In Ext. A3 account statement, the opposite parties calculated the amounts and it is stated that a net excess amount of Rs. 1,413/- is refundable. The complainant and the employee of the opposite parties had signed in Ext. A3. Instead of paying the balance amount to the complainant, the opposite parties went to the extend of saying that he is a stranger to them. The above conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are answerable for the deficiency and consequent to the mental agony of the complainant.

7. Point No. ii. :- The complainant has been unnecessarily dragged into litigation which could have been awarded in the first place the mental agony as raised is not substantially abated. The primary belief that the consumer is king cannot go unsubstantiated. Compensation is awarded at Rs. 2,000/- and costs at Rs. 1,000/-.

8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund Rs. 1,413/- as agreed by them together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation.

2. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation and costs of the proceedings respectively to the complainant.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 25^th day of October 2011.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========