KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.147/07
JUDGMENT DATED 13.09.2010
PRESENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
The Manager
Marikar Motors Ltd. P.B.No.144,
Door No.16/926 A, Kallai Road, -- APPELLANT
Chalappuram P.O, Kozhikode.
(By Adv.Mangala Gowri)
Vs.
1. P.M.Syed Abdullah Bafakhy,
Sahib Manzil, Francis Road,
P.O.Chalappuram, Calicut-2.
2. Malabar Automobiles
24/1062. Mooriyad, -- RESPONDENTS
P.O.Mankavu, Calicut-7.
3. Hindustan Motors Ltd.
Birla Building, 10th Floor,
9/1, R.N.Mukherjee Road,
Koikotta - 700001
(By Adv.Shyam Padman
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant was the first opposite party and respondents 1 to 3 were the complainant and opposite parties 2 and 3 respectively in OP.No.482/01 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant claimed compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not giving the discount of Rs.30,000/- It was also alleged that the opposite parties collected a sum of Rs.30,000/- in excess of the maximum retail price of the car.
2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 documents were marked on his side. From the side of the opposite parties RWs 1 and 2 were examined and B1 to B7 documents were marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 4th October 2006 directing the third opposite party Hindustan Motors Ltd. to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 4.8.2000 till the date of realization. The third opposite party was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. It is against the said order; the present appeal is filed by the first opposite party therein. It is to be noted that no order has been passed against the appellant/1st opposite party. The impugned order is passed only against the third opposite party, Hindustan Motors Ltd (third respondent herein). But, the third respondent has not preferred any appeal from the impugned order. Thus, the aggrieved party has not preferred any appeal from the order passed by the Forum below in OP.482/01.
3. We heard the counsel for the appellant/1st opposite party and the first respondent/complainant. There was no representation for the respondents 2 and 3 (opposite parties 2 and 3 in OP.482/01).
4. The available evidence on record would show that a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been collected from the first respondent/complainant. The documentary evidence available on record would make it clear that Rs.30,000/- was collected from the first respondent/complainant. So, the Forum below is perfectly justified in directing the third opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs.30,000/- collected from the first respondent/complainant. The Forum below can also be justified in awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant. The evidence on record would show that the opposite parties were reluctant in giving the offered discount of Rs.30,000/-. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not giving the assured discount of Rs.30,000/-. More over, the appellant/first opposite party is not aggrieved by the impugned order. Only the third respondent/third opposite party is aggrieved by the impugned order. But the third respondent has not challenged the impugned order. Thus, in all respects, the present appeal preferred by the appellant/first opposite party is liable to be dismissed. Hence we do so.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
S/L
