DATE OF FILING: 03.05.2011

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of June, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No. 105/2011

Between

Complainant : T.Selvan,

Document Writer,

Puthenveettil House,

Varikkadanvalavu,

Peerumedu P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Lissy.M.M)

And

Opposite Party : N.S.Prasannan,

Aiswarya Villa,

Anakkara P.O,

Anakkara,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

The complainant purchased a Maruti second hand car from the opposite party on 30.01.2011 for Rs.67,000/-. For the sake of purchase, an agreement was constituted on 30.01.2011 itself. On 30.01.2011 the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- to the opposite party and the very next day ie, on 31.01.2011, he paid Rs.30,000/- in the account of one Sukumaran, the relative of the opposite party, as instructed by the opposite party. As per the agreement, the opposite party had promised to arrange finance under hire purchase scheme for the said vehicle for Rs.30,000/-. The complainant had given a blank cheque to the opposite party for security of finance. Complainant stated in the petition that at the time of agreement, the opposite party orally admitted to endorse gas connection to the vehicle and also agreed to do some repairing works. In the blank cheque issued by the complainant, as a security to finance, the opposite party had inserted a date and amount and presented for encashment. The said cheque has bounced and that caused the opposite party to send an advocate notice to the complainant and threatening the initiation of prosecution against the complainant. In this aspect complainant alleged unfair trade practice against the opposite party. As per the agreement, the opposite party is bound to arrange finance to the complainant. But so far he has not done the same. Thus the opposite party had made a breach of promise and this caused damages to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed before the Forum.
 

2. The opposite party absent. No written version filed, made exparte.

3.The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 marked on the side of the complainant.

5. The POINT :- The complainant examined as PW1. Ext.P1 is the copy of agreement dated 30.01.2011 created between the complainant and the opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of lawyer notice dated 25.02.2011 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext.P3 is the office copy of the notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant as a statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Ext.P4 is copy of reply notice dated 22.03.2011 given by the complainant to the opposite party. The pay-in-slip of SBT is marked as Ext.P5. Cash Bill of M/s.Maruthi Car Care at Kanjirappally is marked as Ext.P6.

The complainant had purchased the Maruti second hand car on 30.01.2011. This petition is filed on 3.05.2011. The dispute arised after a short period itself. As per Ext.P1 agreement, the opposite party is bound to arrange finance facility to the complainant. But the opposite party has not acted according to the agreement. In this aspect we find deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. At the time of agreement, the petitioner had given a blank cheque to the opposite party as a security for finance. But without the knowledge of the petitioner the opposite party inserted a date and amount and produced before the bank for encashment, that cheque became bounced and the opposite party turned against the complainant and started prosecution procedure against him. Ext.P2 is the legal notice dated 25.02.2011 sent to the opposite party, it reveals the payment made by the complainant and also the demand of arrangement of finance. Ext.P3 is copy of notice dated 17.03.2011 sent to the complainant by the opposite party for the demand of Rs.40,000/- which is a statutory notice u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. So on accept of the notice dated 25.02.2011 sent by the complainant, the opposite party sent a lawyer notice after presenting the cheque before the bank for collection. So we think that it is a defence made by the opposite party against the legal action of the complainant as per Ext.P2 notice. But the opposite party never replied for the Ext.P2 notice and never disputed the facts stated in the notice. In the reply notice issued by the complainant in Ext.P4 to the Ext.P3 notice, the complainant has explained how the cheque of the complainant happened to be in the hand of the opposite party. So the matters stated by the complainant are not at all challenged by the opposite party in anywhere. Ext.P5, the bank pay slip shows that the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- in the account of one Mr.Sukumaran. As per the complainant, he is the relative of the opposite party and he did the same as per the instructions of the opposite party. That matter also not challenged by the opposite party in anywhere. Ext.P6 bill shows that the complainant has repaired the vehicle. So we think that the complainant is entitled to get the amount paid by him to the opposite party, because the opposite party never acted as per the agreement and not arranged finance to the vehicle. But he deliberately produced the cheque before the bank for collection.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.35,000/- to the complainant and take back the disputed vehicle. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2011

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - T.Selvan

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of vehicle sale agreement dated 30.01.2011 created between the complainant and the opposite party

Ext.P2 - Photocopy of lawyer notice dated 25.02.2011 issued by the complainant to the opposite party

Ext.P3 - Office copy of lawyer notice dated 17.03.2011 issued by the opposite party to the complainant

Ext.P4 - Photocopy of reply notice dated 22.03.2011 issued by the complainant to the opposite party

Ext.P5 - Pay-in-slip dated 31.01.2011 of SBT, Anakkara Branch

Ext.P6 - Cash Bill dated 2.02.2011 for Rs.3,800/- issued by M/s.Maruti Car Care, Kanjirappally

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil