IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 29th day of February , 2012
Filed on 11-11-2011
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.365/2011
Between
Complainant :- | Opposite party |
Smt. Sreekala W/o Murali, Vadakkekallelil, Mahadevikadu muri, Karthikapalli Village, Karthikappalli P.O. | 1.Proprietor,Donnies Motors Private, Paravoor, Vadakkal P.O. |
O R D E R
SRI.K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Smt.Sreekala has filed this complaint before the Forum on 11.11.2011 through her Power of Attorney Holder alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party. The allegation are as follows:- She had contacted the opposite party for the purchase of the Suzuki Access-125 Scooter from them. At that time the opposite party had assured that the scooter will be available within 10 days. On that assurance she had remitted a sum of Rs. 1000/- before the opposite party on 10.05.2011. Since she had not obtained the vehicle as per the assurance,she contacted the opposite party. The opposite party had intimated that in case she remit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- the Scooter will be released immediately and agreed that the balance amount is to be remitted later. She had remitted a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 21.05.2010. Even though she had remitted a total sum of Rs. 31,000/-, She had not obtained the vehicle from the opposite party. The opposite party had evaded from the assurance by raising unnecessary reasons. So far she had not obtained the vehicle or the return of the remitted amount from the opposite party. She contacted the opposite party on 13.10.2011 and requested to release either the vehicle or the deposited amount of Rs.31,000/- She had not obtained any relief so far from the opposite pary. Hence this complaint.
2. Notices was issued to the opposite party. He had accepted the notice of this forum. But the opposite party have not appeared before the Forum. Considering the absence of the opposite party ;they were declared as exparte by this Forum on 25.01.2012 and proceeded the matter.
3. Considering the allegation of the complaint , this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration.
1)Whether there is any deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party.
2)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the deposited amount from the opposite party.
3)Compensation and costs.
4 . Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of her case and produced documents in evidence – three documents- marked the documents Ext.A1 to A3-
5. Ext:A1 is the original Receipt No: 169 dated 10/05/2011 issued by the opposite party to the complainant after accepting a sum of Rs.1000/- at the time of booking the said vehicle. The receipt shows the opposite parties firm is at Vadakal. The receipt was signed and sealed Ext.A2 is the original receipt No.193 dated 21.05.2011 issued by the opposite party to the complainant at the time of accepting a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from her in connection with the said booking of the vehicles. The receipt was singed need sealed by opposite party. Ext.A3 is the original Power of Attorney deed executed by the complainant authorizing her husband to conduct this case before the Forum.
6. We have fully examined this matter in detail and perused the documents filed by the complainant. Heard the matter. It is seen that the complainant had remitted a total sum of Rs.31,000/- before the opposite party for getting the Suzuki Access 125 Scooter. It is on the basis of the assurance on the side of the opposite party to deliver the said vehicle. But the opposite party has not fulfilled the assurance and purposefully evaded from the assurance after collecting total a sum of Rs.31,000/-from the complainant. It is alleged by her that so far . She had not obtained the said vehicle from the opposite party. It is further alleged that when contacted the opposite party on 13.10.2011, the opposite party had not shown any in terest to release the said vehicle and that the opposite party had behaved in rude way. The entire facts of this matter shows the deficiency in service, negligence imperfection and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party by way of refusing to release the said vehicle to the complainant, in time even though the opposite party had collected the major amount of Rs. 31,000/- from the complainant. It is to be further noticed that the opposite party has not appeared before the Forum, eventhough they have accepted the notice of this Forum . This shows their responsible attitude towards this matter . Considering the entire facts of this case, the opposite party is not at all entitled to retain the amount with them with out releasing the said vehicle to the complainant. Opposite party is fully bound to release the said vehicle to the complainant in time. Any kind of deviation from the assurance will amounts to deficiency in service or negligence and unfair trade parties. The Complainant is fully entitled to get the amount from the opposite party, Since she has not obtained the said vehicle from opposite party in time. The whole action taken by the opposite party in this case was highly illegal , arbitrary and cheating. The opposite party is fully liable for the inconvenience causeded to the complainant and so the opposite party is liable to answerable for this. Even though the opposite party had collected a total sum of Rs. 31,000/-from the complainant, the opposite party has shown any responsible attitude to release the vehicle to the complainant in time. On a reading of the whole facts and after verifying the documents, (Exts.A1 and A2) We are of the view that the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party is to be treated as genuine . So the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for by the complainant. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result we here by direct the opposite party to pay back the amount of Rs.31,000/- (Rupees thirty one thousand only ) to the complainant, which was collected by the opposite party in connection with the booking of the said vehicle, and further pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only ) to the complainant for her mental agony, pain, harassment in convenience and loss due to the grossest t deficiency in service negligence and unfair trade practice of the opposite party; by way of purposeful refusal to release the said vehicle to the complainant in time, eventhough Rs.31,000/- was collected by the opposite party from the complainant and unnecessarily drag on the matter and evaded to release the vehicle as per assurance. We direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only ) as costs of this proceedings, to the complainant. We further ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the opposite party in case any violation to comply with this order. Opposite party shall comply with this order within 30 days from the date receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of February , 2012.
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Sri.Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-Ext.A1
Ext.A1 - Receipt dated 10/05/2011
Ext.A2 - Receipt dated 21/05/2011
Ext.A3 -Authorisation letter
Evidence of the Opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by-
