O R D E R

(By Smt. Suvarna jayasri, President)

1. Under 12 of CP Act the brief facts are set out in the complaint as under.   

The complainant is the resident of Jannepalli village of Navipet mandal dist. Nizamabad and he is an un employee and with an intention to eke out his livelihood, intended to purchase an auto rickshaw for running on hire basis with the said intention the complainant went to purchase an auto in instalments and visited the show room there the representative of the opposite party approached him and assured to provide financial assistance for purchase of Auto. At that time the representative of opposite party stated that one Auto rickshaw bearing No.TS-16-UA-3195 has been seized by them from the borrower for non payment of the loan amount and they are intending to sell the same in auction and further the representative of the opposite party stated the auto is in good condition and offered to sell the same for the less rate than the actual price for Rs.1,67,000/- and also assured to provide financial assistance for the said auto rickshaw at the down payment of Rs.20,000/- only. The complainant agreed to purchase the same, accordingly completed the formalities on 22-06-2015 and paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards down payment and the opposite party has sanctioned the financial assistance by providing EMI payment at the rate of Rs.5,500/-. After completion of all formalities the opposite party handed the over the Auto in the name of Soppari Ramesh and assured to transfer the vehicle in the name of complainant after paying all instalments.

The complainant further submitted that after purchasing the auto vehicle is giving trouble and not in running condition such as not starting and stopping vehicle very frequently hence the complainant took the vehicle to the mechanic and the mechanic after checking the same he said that the bush pump (which is supply the diesel to the engine) is not in good conditionaccordingly the complainant got changed the same , and the vehicle run for one day only. There after giving trouble in starting and stopping frequently on roads. Accordingly the complainant took the vehicle to the mechanic.The mechanic after thorough checking the vehicle he stated that there is a problem in the engine and it will be repaired with the expenditure of more than Rs 8,000/- for repairing the same. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party and the opposite party assured to adjust the said repair amount in instalments. Accordingly the complainant got repaired it by spending the amount of Rs 4370/- for spare parts apart from service charges of Rs 3,000/-. The complainant after repair informed to opposite party and furnished the bill/invoice of spare parts and the receipt issued by the mechanic. The complainant demanded the opposite party for repair bills on 07-07-2015. The opposite party assured to arrange the payment of the said amount and asked the complainant to pay regular instalment if any repair takes place finally adjusted after regular instalment. Accordingly the complainant got repaired and paid all instalments to the opposite party On 21-07-2017 and after final instalment also the opposite party assured the complainant to arrange repair bills. Anyhow after final payment of instalment the vehicle transferred in the name of complainant. Many times the complainant approached the opposite party to arrange the payment of repair bills paid by complainant i.e Rs.7,370/- but the opposite party dodged the matter on one or other pretext and fail to pay the said amount. The complainant moved from pillar to pole for the payment of repair bills but no use. The opposite party fail to comply their assurance.

That the acts of the opposite party in selling the defective vehicle and non payment of the amount incurred by the complainant which clearly shows improper services and gross negligence on the part of the opposite party and it will clearly establish the clandestine business . As such the complainant is entitled to claim of Rs.7,370/- for getting the auto repaired ,and Rs.50,000/-towards damages for causing mental agony.

2. To the case of complainant the opposite party not filed their counter and they remained ex-parte throughout the proceedings.

5. The points for consideration:-

1.  Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite party

in rendering service?

2.  To what relief?

6. POINT No. 1 & 2:  

It is the case of complainant that he intended to purchase auto rickshaw on instalments for eke out his livelihood.The complainant visited the show room there the representative of opposite party approached the complainant and assured to provide financial assistance for purchase of auto.

At that time the representative of opposite party stated that one auto rickshaw bearing No. TS-16-UA–3195 has been seized from borrower for non payment of loan amount they intending to sell the same in auction which is in good condition sell the same for less rate than the actual price for Rs. 1,67,000/ for down payment of Rs 20,000/-. Accordingly the complainant agreed to purchase the same and completed the formalities on 22-6-2015 and paid an amount of Rs 20,000/- towards down payment and the opposite party has sanctioned the financial assistance by providing EMI payment at the rate of Rs. 5,500/-per month. The opposite party handed over the physical possession of the said vehicle which is in the name of one Soppari Ramesh and assured to transfer the vehicle in the name of the complainant after the payment of all the instalments. Since from the date of purchased the vehicle is started giving trouble and not in running condition such as not starting and stopping vehicle very frequently hence the complainant took the vehicle to the mechanic and the mechanic after checking the same he said that the bush pump (which is supply the diesel to the engine) is not in good condition,

accordingly the complainant got changed the same,then the vehicle run for one day only. There after giving trouble in starting and stopping frequently on roads. Accordingly the complainant took the vehicle to the mechanic. The mechanic after thorough check of the vehicle he stated that there is a problem in the engine and it will be repaired with the expenditure of more than Rs. 8,000/-. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party and the opposite party assured to adjust the said repair amount in instalments. Accordingly the complainant got repaired it by spending the amount of Rs. 4,370/- for spare parts apart from service charges of Rs. 3,000/-. The complainant after repair informed to opposite party and furnished the bill/invoice of spare parts and the receipt issued by the mechanic. The complainant demanded the opposite party for repair bills on 07-07-2015. The opposite party assured to arrange the payment of the said amount and asked the complainant to pay regular instalment if any repair takes place finally adjusted after regular instalment. Accordingly the complainant got repaired and paid all instalments to the opposite party. On 21-07-2017 after final instalment also the opposite party assured the complainant to arrange repair bills. Anyhow after final payment of instalment the vehicle transferred in the name of complainant. Many times the complainant approached the opposite party to arrange the payment of repair bills paid by complainant i.e Rs.7,370/- but the opposite party dodged the matter on one or other pretext and fail to pay the said amount. The complainant moved from pillar to pole for the payment of repair bills but no use. Hence the opposite party fail to comply their assurance.

The opposite party set ex-parte throughout the proceedings.

To prove the case the complainant filed his affidavit as pw1, Ex. A1 to A4 are marked. Ex. A1 is Certificate of Registration of the vehicle Auto No. TS -16-UA-3195 in the name of complainant Ex. A2 is permit in respect of a particular contract carriage of the vehicle Auto No. TS-16-UA -3195 in the name of S. Bhargava Chary Ex.A3 are receipts of instalments issued by opposite party (total 25) Padmapriya financiers. Ex. A4 Retail Invoice of spare parts spent of Rs. 600/- by complainant. As per the version of complainant he has spent Rs.7,370/- towards repairs but Ex.A4 reveals the complainant spent Rs. 600/-.

The complainant is fails to adduce evidence for spending of Rs.7,370/- for repairs of the said auto. In view of not adducing evidence for repair bills the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In view of above stated circumstance and facts we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 6.     In the Result, the complaint is “ DISMSSED” without costs.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the President in Open Forum on this the 30^th day of January 2019.

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

(Witnesses examined on behalf of)

For the Complainant :                                                           For the Opposite Party:

Affidavit of Complainant                                                      Exparte

filed as evidence as Pw.1                                                                  

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

For the Complainant :

MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT

(NK)