IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 21stday of June, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 124/2020 (Filed on 07-08-2020)
Petitioner : Devassia Thomas,
S/o. Thomas Antony
Pallikkunnel House,
Velloor P.O.Pampady,
Kottayam - 686501
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) P.M. Saleem,
(Broker)
Chullikkalkara,
Thoppumpadi village,
14/322 A, Kochi.
(2) Farees,
Vehicle Owner,
Pothampalliparamb,
Palluruthi,
Nambiyapuram Road,
Ernakulam - 682006
(Adv. Bobby John K.A.)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Case Of the complainant is as follows:
Devasia Thomas who is the son of the complainant hadpurchased a Bajaj Pulsar Bike bearing Reg no. KL-7-BV-8687from the first opposite party. At the time of the sale firstopposite made to believe the son of the complainant that thevehicle was in show room condition. When the said DevasiaThomas ride the vehicle on 20-7-20 he noticed a shivering inthe tyres. The son of the complainant had paid Rs. 26,000/- tothe first opposite party as price of the vehicle and the chargesfor changing the ownership in the name of Devasia Thomas.
The next day of purchase the vehicle was entrusted to workshopand he had spent Rs. 900/- for oil change and for replacement ofbearing. Apart from that the mechanic told that the piston ofthe vehicle was damaged and Rs. 6000/- would be the cost toreplace the same. When this was informed to the first opposite partyand demanded Rs. 6000 which would be the cost of the piston,the first opposite party offered only Rs. 1000/-. Then thecomplainant demanded to take back the vehicle and refund Rs.25900/-, but the first opposite party refused the demand of thecomplainant. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainantpraying for an order to direct the first opposite part to take backthe vehicle and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for theunfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties.
Upon notice from this commission opposite parties appearedbefore the forum filed joint version.
Complainant had purchased a Baja Pulsar bike from the secondhand vehicle showroom which was conducted by the firstopposite party. He had purchased the vehicle after having testride and inspection of the vehicle by a mechanic. The firstopposite party never made any representation that the vehicle isin a showroom condition. Normally no guarantee will be givento the second hand vehicle and the vehicle would not be takeback. Al theses aspects are published and affixed in theshowroom and the vehicle had been purchased by thecomplainant after understanding all these conditions. Firstopposite party is only a commission agent. First opposite partyhad agreed to return Rs. 1,000/- which is the commissionamount.
It is submitted in the version that the complainant had raisedthe complaint after using the vehicle for a month. It is averredin the version that the the damage would have beenoccurred due to the carless and negligent use of the vehicle bythe complainant. The original owner of the vehicle was thesecond opposite party and he is at Bangalore for his studies.First opposite party refused pay Rs. 6000/- to the complainantas demanded by him.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examinationand marked exhibit A1 to A7. First opposite party filed proofaffidavit in lieu of chief examination. No documentary evidencefrom the first opposite party. No oral or documentary evidenceon the side of the second opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record wewould like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complainant succeeded to prove the unfair tradepractice on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs?
Point number 1and 2
There is no dispute on the fact that the Devasia Thomas who isthe son of the complainant had purchased a Bajaj Pulsar Bikebearing Reg no. KL-7-BV-8687 from the first opposite party.Exhibit A3 which is the agreement for sale proves that the firstopposite party who is in the possession and enjoyment of thevehicle had soled the said vehicle to the son of the complainantfor a sale consideration of Rs. 26,000/-. On perusal of exhibit A3and A6 we can see that said vehicle was owned by the secondopposite party. The specific case of the complainant is thatthough the first opposite party made to believe the complainantthat the said vehicle was in a showroom condition, from thesecond day of purchase it was detected that the piston of thevehicle was a damaged one and the cost for replacing thesame would amounts to Rs.6000/-. The complaint wasresisted by the opposite party stating that the vehicle waspurchased by the son of the complainant after riding the vehicleand inspection by a mechanic. The son of the complainantpurchased the vehicle after satisfying with condition of thevehicle. Though the complainant produced exhibit A7 series of billto prove the defect of the vehicle on perusal of these exhibitswe can see that all these bills are issued after few months from thedate of purchase. It is pertinent to note that the complaint hasfailed to adduce any evidence to show that the opposite part hadsold a vehicle which with a defective piston. Moreover it ispertinent not that in the complaint as well as in the proofaffidavit complainant admitted that he purchased the bike afterhaving a ride with the vehicle and during of riding he notedonly a shivering on the tyres. On the evaluation of above discussion we are of the opinion thatcomplainant failed to proof any unfair trade practice on the sideof the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 21st day of June, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of advertisement
A2 – Copy of acknowledgement receipt of petition dtd.30-07-20 by City police office, Kochi.
A3 – Sale deed dtd.20-07-2020 between the petitioner and 1st opposite party
A4 – Pollution certificate of vehicle (KL-07-BV 8687)
A5 – Copy of insurance certificate
A6 – Copy of RC book (KL07BV8687)
A7series – bills
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
