BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 17/06/2009
Date of Order : 29/10/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 320/2009
Between
V.P. Jojo, S/o. Paily, | :: | Complainant |
Vazhakkalayil House, Vazhakkala, Kakkanad, Ernakulam District. |
| (By Adv. Praveen Hariharan, 3rd Floor, Peedikathodiyil Buildings, Near Reserve Bank of India, Lisie Junction, Kochi - 18) |
And
M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., | :: | Opposite party |
Post Box No. 1891, National Highway, Kaloor, Kochi – 682 017 |
| (By Adv. V. Krishna Menon, Menon & Menon Advocates, H.R.S. Complex, 1st Floor, S.R.M. Road, Kochi - 18) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :
Lured by the assurances of the opposite party in April 2009, the complainant purchased a used truck bearing Registration No. KL-09-R-756 from them at a price of Rs. 4 lakhs. Being a used vehicle, it was registered in the name of Mr. K. Prasad, S/o. Kesavan, Vasantha Nivas, Palakkad. The complainant was assured that the vehicle would be transferred in the name of the complainant within 2 weeks from the date of delivery. Since there was no valid fitness certificate, no clearance certificate was issued to the vehicle so as to transfer ownership of the vehicle in the name of the complainant. Unless and until clearance certificate is issued and vehicle transferred in the name of the complainant, he would not be able to apply for fitness certificate. The opposite party is contractually liable to get the vehicle transferred in the name of the complainant. The complainant is carrying on the business of catering service and the main purpose of purchasing the vehicle was to use the same in connection with his business. He had to spend Rs. 35,000/- for the maintenance of the vehicle. On 21-05-2009, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite party highlighting his grievances, but there was no response. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party,
to refund the purchase price of the vehicle with interest after taking back the vehicle.
to pay Rs. 1,95,000/- with interest from 21-04-2009 to till date.
to pay Rs. 7,500/- per day from 21-04-2009 to till date the vehicle is made roadworthy.
to pay Rs. 35,000/- being the sum incurred by the complainant for the maintenance of the vehicle.
to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-
2. The version of the opposite party :
The complainant purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and the same is being operated engaging paid driver. So, the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 27-04-2009, the clearance certificate was given to the complainant on 19-05-2009. At the time of delivery the vehicle had a fitness certificate valid upto 12-05-2009. The opposite party is not liable to pay Rs. 35,000/- the alleged expenses for the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, they are not liable to pay any amount as prayed for in the complaint.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on his side. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Exts. B1 to B6 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that came up for consideration are :-
Whether the complainant is a consumer?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the price of the vehicle refunded from the opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party?
5. Point No. i. :- According to the complainant, he has been conducting a catering service and he is driving the vehicle in question himself. Though the opposite party vehemently disputed the averment of the complainant, nothing is on record to substantiate the same. So, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act.
6. Point No. ii. :- Admittedly, the complainant does not have a case that the impugned vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect or is not in a position to ply. In that case, the complainant is not entitled to get refund of the price of the vehicle from the opposite party on the argument of deficiency in service.
7. Point No. iii. :- The chronological events in this case are as follows :
On 24-04-2009, the complainant purchased a used vehicle through the opposite party.
The registered owner of the vehicle was Mr. K. Prasad, Vasantha Nivas, Palakkad.
The complainant took delivery of the vehicle from the opposite party on 27-04-2009 evident from Ext. B2/A5.
Ext. B4 fitness certificate was valid from 12-05-2008 to 11-05-2009.
The R.T.O., Palakkad issued clearance certificate of the vehicle on 19-05-2009.
8. The complainant bought the vehicle from the opposite party on 24-04-2009 and took delivery of the same on 27-04-2009. Admittedly, fitness certificate of the vehicle was valid upto 11-05-2009 only. Thereupon as per Ext. B5 the R.T.O. concerned issued clearance certificate on 19-05-2009, which the complainant however did not receive the same till filing of this complaint on 17-06-2009. Both parties failed to produce the exact date of receipt of Ext. B5. According to the opposite party, as per Ext. B1 letter issued by the complainant, they have no responsibility to obtain the documents of the vehicle. Evidently, there is a delay in issuing the relevant documents to the complainant that too no fault of his which was seemingly or evidently caused by the opposite party especially since the documents are in the possession of the opposite party and not handed over to the complainant. Since the opposite party collected the price of the vehicle they had a primary duty to issue the documents of the vehicle to the complainant in which they failed. This calls for claim. Due to the delay in issuing the same, the complainant has had to suffer monitory loss in lieu of refund of the price of the vehicle the subsequent expense incurred by him and the further loss of Rs. 7,500/- per day for not having had to ply the vehicle.
9. In spite of the contentions raised by the complainant as to the above amounts, the opposite party has failed to contest, controvert and repudiate the same. In the event of which this Forum is only to allow this complaint. However, in the interest of justice that the consumer's right be upheld this Forum is compelled to allow this complaint in part ordering compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) to the complainant which would this Forum feels would adequately compel compensation. Ordered accordingly.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realisation.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day 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 :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of used Truck Order Booking Forum dt. 21-04-2009 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of quotation/proforma invoice dt. 23-04-2009 |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of the receipt issued by the op.pty |
“ A4 | :: | Copy of the receipt dt. 27-04-2009 |
“ A5 | :: | Copy of certificate of fitness applicable in the case of transport vehicles only. |
“ A6 | :: | Copy of the lawyer notice dt. 21-05-2009 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of the agreement dt. 27-04-2009 |
“ B2 | :: | Copy of the satisfaction dt. 27-04-2009 |
“ B3 | :: | Copy of the letter issued by the complainant to the op.pty. |
“ B4 | :: | Copy of certificate of fitness applicable in the case of transport vehicles only. |
“ B5 | :: | Copy of clearance certificate dt. 19-05-2009 |
“ B6 | :: | A reply notice dt. 23-06-2009 |
Depositions :- |
|
|
PW1 | :: | Jojo. V.P. - Complainant |
=========
