O R D E R
Sri. George Baby (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the getting relief from the opposite party.
2. The allegation s of the complainant is as follows:-Smt.Mini Joseph has filed the complaint before the commission. The main allegations of the complainant are as follows:-
3. She is the owner of the firm M/S. Mariya Fish Mart which is engaged in the business of supplying fish. She is the owner of the vehicle bearing No: KL-62/E1829- Bolero Maxi Trucks. The said vehicle met with an accident on 1/11/2019. After the incident, she had entrusted the vehicle on 1/11/2019 before the Pothens Auto Pvt. Ltd., for maintenance work of the vehicle. Before entrusting to the vehicle to the Pothens, she had intimated the details of the vehicle to M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Company. She had obtain the permission from them also for maintenance work at the time of entrusting the vehicle to the 1st opposite party. They have confirmed that the vehicle will be ready for delivery within a short time. But the 1st opposite partydefaulted that condition and no delivered the vehicle intime. Due to that she had taken an another vehicle bearing No: KL34/F 7750 for her business purpose and she obtained said vehicle for sum of Rs.4,000/- per day in order to continue the business. She had sustained a loss of Rs. 4,00,000/- forhundred days at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per day. For getting the relief of the same she had filed this complaint before the Commission.
4. Notices were sent to the opposite parties along with the complaint for appearance and filing version. Several adjournments were given to the opposite parties for filing version. But they have not appeared before the Commission. So, the Commission declared them as ex-parte.
5. Considering the allegation of the complainant Commission raised the following issues for consideration.
1. Whether the allegations of the complainant are treated as genuine?
2.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite
parties?
3. Cost and compensation?
6. Issues No: 1 to 3:
Complainant has filed proof affidavit insupport of her claim and produced documents in evidence. Exhibit A1 to A8 marked.
7. On a perusal of the complaint and documents in evidence, it is seen that the complainant has entrusted the vehicle to rectify the defects after the accident of the vehicle. At the time of entrusting the vehicle to 1stOpposite party they have confirmed that the vehicle will be ready to release at the earliest. But the O.P has not
complied the same assurance and purpose fully committed delay of the delivery.
8. Even though opposite party have accepted the notice of the commission, the opposite parties not turnedup or filed any version. This shows that the opposite parties have nothing to offer. In this context considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party are to be treated as genuine and reasonable. On perusal of the entire facts of this case there is inordinate delay to return the vehicle after rectifying the defect of the vehicle to complainant by the opposite party. The opposite parties have taken unnecessary delay to supply the vehicle in time. So the complainant’s allegations are to be allowed as prayed for. Since there is inordinate delay to supply the vehicle in time and there is unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party the complainant is fully entitled to get compensation and cost from the opposite party. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
9. In the result, we allow the complaint as prayed for with a direction to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per day for hundred days by the 1st opposite party to the complainant forming a total Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) for the loss of money incurred by the complainant. We further direct the 1st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for her mental agony inconvenience loss of additional amount and physical strain due to the purposeful delay to return the delivery of the vehicle after rectifying the defects in time and for the unfair trade practice. We further direct the 1st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as cost of this proceedings and direct the 1st opposite party to pay the above said amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which 6 % interest will be added with the above said amounts. We further direct that in case of any default to pay the amount as ordered the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the 1st opposite party.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of February, 2021.
(Sd/-)
Sri. George Baby (President)
Smt. ShajithaBeevi. N(Member I) : (Sd/-)
Sri.NishadThankappan (Member II) :(Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1: Mini Joseph
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1: RC book.
A2 series: Trip sheet for contract carriages (4Nos.)
A3: copy of legal notice dated: 10/02/2020.
A4: AD card.
A5: Original cash receipt voucher.
A6: copy of insurance policy certificate.
A7: copy of legal notice dated: 19/06/2020.
A8: AD Card.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Copy to:- (1) Mini Joseph,
KariplamattathilVeedu, SanthoshKavala Kara,
Mukkoottuthara P.O, Kollamula Village, Ranni.
(2) The Manager,
Pothens Autos Pvt. Ltd., JJ Arcade, NH 47,
Metro Piller 150, Thaikkattukara PO, Ernakulam – 683106.
(3) The Manager,
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Opp. Juma Masjid,
Thattamala P.O, Kollam – 691020.
(4) The Stock File.
