Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/298/2015

M/s.Balaguru Manickavasagam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Vedha Motors - Opp.Party(s)

B.Devakumar

27 Sep 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  10.07.2015 

                                                                        Date of Order :  27.09.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

  @   2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3.

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

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

C.C. NO.298/2015

DATED THIS THURSDAY THIS 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

 

Balaguru Manickavasagam,

S/o. Mr. Chandran,

No.149, 21 On Nagar,

VellarithangalSerappana,

Chripadappai,

Sriperumbudur,

Kanchipuram – 60130.                                                   .. Complainant

                                                       ..Versus..

 

1. Vedha Motors,

Represented by its Manager,

No.114, Bazaar Street,

New Annamalai Complex,

Padappai,

Chennai – 601 301.

 

2.  TVS Credit Services,

Represented by its Manager,

Britos Towers, Third Floor,

Back side of Olympia IT Park,

Guindy,

Chennai.                                                                    .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant         :   M/s. B. Devakumar & another

Counsel for  the Opposite parties :   Exparte.

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to give back the TVS XL (SUPER HD) to the complainant which was seized by the 2^nd opposite party on due payment of Rs.2080/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for physical sufferings, mental agony, financial business loss, loss of income and other incidental losses caused to the complainantand to pay cost to the complainant.

1.     The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The complainant submits that for the due development of his business on 09.01.2013, the complainant purchased a TVS XL (SUPER HD) vehicle from the 1^st opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-.  Further the complainant submits that for the remaining amount of Rs.26,000/-, the complainant arranged finance with the 2^nd opposite party on 23.01.2013.  The said amount shall be payable by the complainant in 24 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.1,410/-. Further the complainant submits that he has paid the monthly instalments very regularly to the tune of Rs.31,818/- and only a balance amount of Rs.2,080/- was due.   Further the complainant submits that on 11.03.2015, the 2^nd opposite party seized the vehicle which was parked in front of his shop.   The complainant issued notice dated:14.03.2015 to the opposite parties 1 & 2.   But received no reply from them.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.    Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     Inspite of receipt of notice, the 1^st opposite party has not chosen to appear before this Forum and therefore the 1^st opposite party was set Exparte.   Mr. M. Rajangam initially filed Vakalath for the 2^nd opposite party, but failed to file written version within the stipulated time and hence the 2^nd opposite party was also set Exparte.

3.     Though the opposite parties remained Exparte, this Forum is to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials before this Forum. 

4.     In such circumstances, in order to prove the allegations made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked. 

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get return of the vehicle TVS XL (SUPER HD) on payment of Rs.2,080/- as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of income with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The opposite parties remained Exparte.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit of the complainant, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that for the due development of his business on 09.01.2013, the complainant purchased a TVS XL (SUPER HD) vehicle from the 1^st opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-.  But the opposite party has given receipt only for Rs.8,984/-.  Ex.A1 is the receipt.  The complainant has not produced any document to prove the balance amount of Rs.11,016/- paid to the 1^st opposite party without receipt.   Further the contention of the complainant is that for the remaining amount of Rs.26,000/-, the complainant arranged finance with the 2^nd opposite party on 23.01.2013.  The said amount shall be payable by the complainant in 24 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.1,410/-.  Ex.A2 is the R.C. Book showing hypothecation.   Further the contention of the complainant is that he has paid the monthly instalments very regularly to the tune of Rs.31,818/- and only a balance amount of Rs.2,080/- was due.  But on a careful perusal of the calculation produced by the complainant as per Ex.A3 series, it shows that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.19,120/- alone.  The complainant has not explained the reason for the non-production of receipt to the tune of Rs.31,818/-.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on 11.03.2015, the 2^nd opposite party seized the vehicle which was parked in front of his shop.   The complainant issued notice dated:14.03.2015 as per Ex.A4.   The opposite party remained Exparte without giving any reply or filing written version.    But on a careful perusal of records, it is seen that on 10.10.2014, the opposite party issued a statement showing that the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.7,103/- which is also not disputed by the complainant.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant is a chronic defaulter in paying EMI as on 10.10.2014 and the complainant was in arrears of Rs.7,103/- and the complainant has not paid the entire EMIs.  So, the 2^nd opposite party had seized the vehicle.  Hence, the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of September 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	09.01.2013	Copy of receipt given by Vedha Motors
Ex.A2	31.01.2013	Copy of RC book of BalaGuruManickavasagam
Ex.A3	05.03.2013 to 05.02.2015	Copy of payment receipts given by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A4	14.03.2015	Copy of legal notice sent to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A5	14.03.2015	Copy of legal notice sent to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A6	17.03.2015	Copy of acknowledgement card from the 1st opposite party for the receipt of legal notice
Ex.A7	17.03.2015	Copy of acknowledgement card from the 2nd opposite party for the receipt of legal notice

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT