BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 16/10/2008

Date of Order : 29/11/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 388/2008

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant purchased a used Mahindra Tipper lorry bearing Registration No. KL-9Q/9878 from the 3^rd opposite party at a price of Rs. 94,490/- and took delivery of the same on 01-04-2008. The opposite party agreed to transfer the vehicle in favour of the complainant at their cost within 30 days from the date of delivery. Further, they agreed to provide 6 years warranty for the vehicle. But the opposite parties did not transfer the vehicle even after expiry of 45 days, and so the financier could not remit the tax in time. Thus, the complainant could not ply the vehicle from 01-05-2008 to 04-06-2008 and sustained a loss to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per day. In the mean time, he had to spend Rs. 17,122/- to repair the gear box. He could not avail the free service, since the opposite parties failed to hand over the warranty papers. He had to spend an amount of Rs. 4,500/- to transfer the ownership in his favour. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 75,000/- being damages for not being able to ply the vehicle, Rs. 17,122/- the repair expenses and Rs. 4,500/- to transfer the ownership of the vehicle. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite parties :

The complainant had purchased a used vehicle and the same did not have any warranty as stated by the complainant. The opposite party had no obligation to get the registration corrected in the complainant's name nor had they undertaken to do so. The financier alone is liable for the delay if any for effecting the change in name. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as claimed for against the opposite parties.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A10 were marked on his side. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get letters of warranty from the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 91,622/- from the opposite parties.

3. Costs of the proceedings?

5. Point No. i. :- Admittedly, the complainant purchased a used truck from the opposite parties. The complainant contended that the opposite parties had offered 6 years warranty for the vehicle. The opposite parties vehemently disputed the above averment of the complainant. The complainant failed to prove that the opposite parties had provided warranty for the vehicle. In the absence of any evidence, we are only to hold that the complainant is not entitled to get warranty letters from the opposite parties.

6. Point No. ii. :- Apart from the averments in the complaint, nothing is on record to substantiate or corroborate the averments of the complainant. Moreover, in Ext. B2 letter issued by the complainant to the opposite parties, the complainant has agreed to transfer the ownership in his favour on his own which calls him back in law to claim otherwise. So, we cannot fasten the liability on the opposite party for the delay if any in transferring the vehicle to the complainant as averred by him. The point that arose aforesaid have been squarely clarified. In the absence of evidence to controvert the same, we are only to dismiss this complaint. Ordered accordingly.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of November 2011.

Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========