IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 29th day of February, 2016
Filed on 21..07..2012
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.250/2012
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Sakkeer @ Sakkeer Hussein 1. Sri. Najeem, Veliyil Veedu
Thekkeveli Veedu Charamangala Muri
Mannancherry, Ponnadu P.O. Muhamma P.O.
Alappuzha Thanneermukkom South Village
(By Adv. Shajitha) Cherthala Taluk
2. Smt. Sajeena, W/o Najeem
-do-
(By Adv. V.,Jayachandran)
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in nutshell is as follows:-
The complainant on 26th March 2012 purchased a car bearing Reg. No.KL-04-P-3717 for an amount of Rs.91,000/- from the opposite parties. The complainant first of all gave an advance amount of Rs.40,000/- and took the possession of the car from the opposite parties. An agreement was executed wherein it was agreed that the complainant would give the balance amount of Rs.51,000/- to the opposite parties within fifteen days. The opposite parties assured the complainant that they would hand over the loan closing letter of the vehicle, and the NOC to the complainant at the time of paying the aforesaid balance amount of Rs.51,000/-. The complainant on 13th April 2012 gave the opposite parties the balance amount as agreed, and the opposite parties agreed in writing to the complainant that the aforesaid material documents would be handed over to the complainant before 23rd April 2012. Notwithstanding the assurance written and otherwise, the opposite parties kept away from keeping their word, and have not issued the said documents to the complainant till date. That apart, the opposite parties further made the complainant believe that the vehicle was in perfect condition. However, the complainant had to expend an amount of Rs.10,000/- for repairing the engine and the Air condition of the vehicle. Got aggrieved on all these, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notices being served the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that they have hand backed the documents as promised by them. On the other hand, it was the complainant who had not paid the balance amount of Rs.51,000/- to the opposite parties. According to the opposite parties, the complainant had raised the allegations as to the damage of the vehicle with the clandestine motive to back out from paying the balance amount to the opposite parties. The opposite parties never committed deficiency of service. The complainant is disentitled to any of the relief sought for, the opposite parties strongly contend.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties the first opposite party was examined as RW1 and another one was examined as RW2 and the document Ext.B1 was marked.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties the issues that come up for consideration before us are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?
5. We meticulously went through the complaint, version, the proof affidavits and other documents brought on record by the parties. It appears that the crux of the complaint put forth by the complainant is that the opposite parties have not handed over the loan closing certificate and the NOC to the complainant as promised by them. According to the opposite parties, they have given the material documents to the complainant, yet the complainant has not yet paid to them the balance amount. On a perusal of the entire materials available before us, it appears that though the opposite parties take up the contention of the non-payment of the balance amount by the complainant in the initial stage of this proceeding, seemingly the opposite party has not pursued the same to further phases. In the cross examination, the opposite party admits that it was undertaken in writing that the documents in question would be given to the complainant before 23rd April 2012. However the opposite parties vehemently hold that the said documents were handed over to the complainant as promised. Interestingly the opposite party further deposed that they have nothing to prove that the material documents were given to the complainant. Thus looking at the premise of the complainant approached this Forum, and the other circumstances unfolded further, we are inevitably persuaded to hold that the complainant’s case is probable and more plausible. We hold that the complainant is entitled to relief.
For whatsoever have been discussed herein above the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to give the complainant ‘the loan closing certificate’ and ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) forthwith. The opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply with the order from the date of receipt of this order.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2016.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
APPENDIX
Evidence of the Complainant:
PW1 - Sakkeer Hussein (Witness)
Ext. A1 - Vehicle sale agreement dated 26.3.2012
Ext.A2 - Confirm letter
Ext.A3 - Vehicle sale agreement dated 10.5.2012
Evidence of the opposite parties:
RW1 - Najeem (Witness)
RW2 - Sumesh (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Vehicle sale agreement dated 10.5.2012
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
