BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C. No. 356/2019 Filed on 14.10.2019
ORDER DATED: 28.06.2024
Complainant:
Kiran, T.C. 43/190, ERA 76, Thottam, Manacaud, Kamaleswaram, Thiruvananthapuram-695 009.
(By Adv. Tharif B.)
Opposite party:
Manager, Pothens Motor Private Limited, Akkulam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 017.
(By Advs. Nair Ajay Krishnan & Vishnu S.)
ORDER
SRI. VIJU V.R. : MEMBER
The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the case is that during 2018 the complainant had approached the opposite party expressing his interest to purchase a brand new vehicle Hyundai Eon Era +. The opposite party instigated the complainant to purchase the said vehicle. There was an exchange facility offered by the opposite party and taking benefit of the said offer the complainant has exchanged his vehicle ‘Fiat Palio 2002’ model to the opposite party for Rs. 15,000/-. But the opposite party has not delivered a new vehicle to the complainant. The act of non-delivery of new vehicle to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.
2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party has averred that the complainant had approached the opposite party expressing his interest to purchase a brand new vehicle Hyundai Eon Era +. The opposite party never instigated the complainant to purchase the said vehicle. The complainant opted the vehicle out of his free will and accord. There was an exchange facility offered by the opposite party and taking benefit of the said offer the complainant has exchanged his vehicle ‘Fiat Palio 2002’ model to the opposite party for Rs. 15,000/-. The total amount of the vehicle Hyundai Eon Era + was Rs. 4,40,122/- after giving Rs. 50,000/- as cash discount to the complainant. An order booking form was signed by the complainant and in the said booking form it is specifically stated that the expected date of delivery of the booked vehicle shall be 30.11.2018 subject to the completion of all financial and documentation requirement by the complainant. But till the date of filing of this complaint, the complainant never approached the opposite party with the balance sale consideration nor requested an extension of time for the payment. It was the complainant who opted to exchange his old vehicle. After booking of the vehicle by the complainant order was placed before the manufacturer and they delivered the vehicle to the opposite party. Since there was no payment or any sort of communication from the part of the complainant the delivered vehicle was sold to other prospective purchaser. The complainant has not performed his part of obligation. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, hence the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory costs to the opposite party.
3. Issues to be ascertained are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
4. Issues (i) & (ii): Both these points are considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has produced two documents which were marked as Exts. P1 and P2. Opposite party has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has not produced any documentary evidence. Both parties filed argument notes. It can be seen from Ext. P1 that the complainant has exchanged his vehicle to the opposite party for Rs. 15,000/-. It is admitted by the Opposite party that they have placed an order before the manufacturer and the manufacturer has delivered the vehicle to the opposite party, but they have not produced any evidence to prove the same. So, it is clear that the opposite party after receiving Rs. 15,000/- as booking amount has not taken any steps to deliver new vehicle to the complainant, hence the opposite party is liable to return the booking amount to complainant. Even though the complainant has exchanged his car he has not produced any evidence before this Commission to prove that he has approached the opposite party with the balance consideration or any sort of communication, hence complainant has no right to get a new car.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the complainant with 6% interest from 14.10.2019 and also pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by him and Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) towards costs of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 28th day of June 2024.
Sd/-
P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
VIJU V.R : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 356/2019
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Kiran
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Vehicle purchase agreement dated 23.11.2018
P2 - Order Booking Form
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
DW1 - Ajay Harry Pothen
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
