KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 292/2019
JUDGMENT DATED: 15.06.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 110/2018 of CDRF, Kannur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- The Manager, Indus Motors Company Pvt. Ltd., Talap Outlet, Talap P.O., Kannur-670 142 (represented by Deepa Rajendran, Legal Manager having office at Tevara, Cochin).
- Nexa, Indira Nagar P.O., Chenkala, Kasaragod-671 541(represented by Deepa Rajendran, Legal Manager having office at Tevara, Cochin).
(By Adv. C.R. Suresh Kumar)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Purushothaman K.V., S/o Govinda Marar, Smitha, Near Kapalikulangara Kshethram, Thaliparamba P.O., Kannur-670 141.
JUDGMENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER
The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 110/2018 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (District Forum for short). The respondent is the complainant. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant. Against the impugned order the opposite parties have filed this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant had booked a Maruthi Baleno Alpha A Plus Petrol car from the 1st opposite party and paid a sum of Rs. 11,000/- on 11.10.2017. The complainant received information about the arrival of the car on 22.12.2017. His application for availability certificate to produce before CCD was denied by the 2nd opposite party. He arranged a loan for the vehicle. The availability certificate was issued by the 2nd opposite party restricting the blocking period to 5 days instead of the normal 15 days. But during the said period the opposite parties delivered the vehicle to a different customer. Hence deficiency of service occurred from the side of the opposite parties. The complainant and his family members suffered hardships and mental agony, loss of time and money. Hence the complaint was filed.
3. The opposite parties did not contest the case before the District Forum. They were set ex-parte. Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and 8 documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A8.
4. The District Forum found that Ext. A3 certificate dated 27.12.2017 issued by 2nd opposite party clearly stated that the vehicle was available for delivery to the complainant and it was blocked for 5 days etc. Ext. A8 bank statement clearly showed that on 27.12.2017 itself the complainant paid the price of the car. But the opposite parties delivered the car to a third party on 31.12.2017 which is against the terms of Ext. A3. Hence the District Forum found that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. They had sold the vehicle to another person for unlawful gain and enrichment. Due to the act of the opposite parties the complainant and his family have suffered too much mental agony, hardships and financial loss. Moreover, there was no contra/rebuttal evidence from the side of the opposite parties.
5. On the basis of the evidence and arguments the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the order, failing which the said amount will carry interest @ 12% from the date of order till realization. Against this order the opposite parties have filed this appeal.
6. Main contentions raised by the opposite parties are that they came to know about the case casually during a search in the ‘Confonet’ for some other case and immediately, an official verified the facts from the District Forum. On verification, we find that this contention is not correct. At the first posting of the case there was representation for the opposite parties before the District Forum. But they did not file version. Another objection raised by the appellant is that the company or its Managing Director is not a party before the District Forum which was a mandatory requirement. In our view, in this case there is no necessity to make the company a party. There is no dispute regarding the quality of the vehicle. The appellants are the only necessary parties.
7. From the above mentioned discussion, the finding of the District Forum is correct. There occurred deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants. Hence there is no need to remand the case for fresh disposal. The opposite parties have no right to file version before the District Forum after 45 days from the date of receipt of notice. The opposite parties had received the notice of the case from the District Forum. It is seen that the signed acknowledgement cards were there in the file. On a perusal of all the documents, evidence and arguments of both parties we find that the compensation allowed by the District Forum is high. The rate of interest is also seen as excess. Hence we decide to reduce the amount of compensation and the rate of interest.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum was Rs. 1,00,000/-. We reduce the amount of compensation from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- and the rate of interest from 12% to 8%. The interest shall be calculated from the date of order of the District Forum i.e; 29.10.2018.
The respondent has the right to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellants before this Commission and before the District Forum on proper application. The balance amount shall be paid by the appellants within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
