Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/245/2015

M/s.Raja PRS - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Jai Autos - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Rakesh Yadav

01 Jul 2019

ORDER

                                                                                Date of Filing  : 25.03.2015                                                                       

                                                                             Date of Order  : 01.07.2019

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                     : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.   : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.245/2015

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 01^ST DAY OF JULY 2019

Raja PRS,

S/o. Mr. Pushparajan,

Flat No.D, 2^nd Floor Block – 1,

Anna Kertek, Annai Garden Ambal Nagar,

Chittibabu Nagar,

Pallikarani,

Chennai – 600 100.                                                    .. Complainant.

..Versus.. 

 

1. Jai Autos,

Represented by its Proprietor

Mr. Christudoss,

V.S. Complex,

No.3/81, Valluvar Salai,

Ramapuram,

Chennai – 600 089.

 

2. Mr. Christudoss,

No.2/315, 1^st Floor,

Jeeva Theruvar,

MAS Nagar,

Senkundram,

Chennai – 600 052.

 

3. KSN HONDA,

Represented by its Manager,

New No.32, Old No.49, 2^nd Street,

Ekkaduthangal,

Anjugam Nagar,

Opposite Kasi Theatre,

Chennai – 600 032.

 

4. Sriram Citi Union Finance Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

No.621, Sire Mansion, 2^nd Floor,

Model School Road,

Thousand Lights,

Chennai.

 

5. Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

3^rd & 4^th Floors, No.10, GJ Complex,

First Main Road,

CIT Nagar,

Chennai – 600 035.                                                 .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant           :  M/s. Rakesh Yadav & 

                                                             another

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party  :  M/s. Jayanthi K Shah

Counsel for the 4^th opposite party  :  M/s. K.V. Ananathakrushnan & 

                                                            others

Opposite parties 1, 2 & 5                 :  Exparte    

                                                           

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 5 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to refund the cost of the vehicle of Rs.54,600/-, fitting charges of Rs.3,500/-, exchange price of surrendered vehicle at Rs.11,000/-, the token payment of Rs.1,000/- and all in total amounting to Rs.70,100/- and in addition to that, the transportation cost for the days he  bound to access the opposite parties 1 & 2 and all the days in sequential would amount to Rs.10,000/- and thereby, the opposite parties 1 & 2 has to pay a sum of Rs.80,100/- to the complainant, to provide the copy of the Loan Agreement signed by him, copies of the post dated cheques, copy of intimation letter from the 4^th opposite party to the 1^st opposite party about delivery of the vehicle along with vehicle registration number, chassis number and engine number, copy of records held by the 4^th opposite party approving the 1^st opposite party as an authorized Sub dealer of the 5^th opposite party, details of payment made so far, for the above loan amount and to intimate about the pendency of arbitration proceedings and the status of pendency and further to direct the 4^th opposite party to repay the sum of Rs.4,800/- for 4 months computing to Rs.19,200/- along with processing charges levied by the 3^rd opposite party at Rs.1,800/- and in total, a sum of Rs.21,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum till the date of payment by realization and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and series of acts of mischief and deficiency in service caused by the opposite parties with cost to the complainant.

Proof Affidavit of the complainant and the opposite parties 3 & 4 not filed for a long time to prove the contentions raised in the complaint and written version.  The complainant and Counsel absent for a long time.  No representation also.  Hence, this complaint is dismissed for default.

Dated this Monday the 01^st day of July 2019.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT