IN THECONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,  KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE    29^th DAYOF NOVEMBER2021

     Present: -Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

                      Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

                     Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

CC.No.07/2020

T.R.Mohanan,

NeethuSadanam,

Urukunnu (P.O.), Urukunnu,

Thenmala, Kollam District.

Pin 691 307.                                                                             :           Complainant           

V/S

1. Sabu(Proprietor),

         “PunalurMotors”S.N.College(Jn),

         Chenthoor, Punaloor,

        Punalur(P.O.), Kollam District.                                       :          Opposite parties

       (By Adv. Sreeraj R.)

2. T.V.S Service Centre,

         Branch, Punalur,

         S.N College (Jn) Near,

        Chemmanthoor,

        Punalur (P.O.), Kollam.

        (By Adv. Sreeraj R.)

ORDER

Smt.Sandhya Rani, B.Sc, LLB, Member

This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

The complainant has approached Mr.Sabu, the proprietor of the 1^st opposite party who is running an authorized TVS two wheeler shop, for purchasing a TVS vehicle by availing a loan facility provided by him and the1^st opposite party agreed to provide vehicle loan through his TVS credit company without obtaining any kind of processing fee and also informed the complainant that the vehicle would cost Rs.80,645/- out of which he has to pay Rs.10,000/- as its 1^st instalment and in such case the remaining monthly instalments would be Rs.2,750/- each.  But if the complainant intends to purchase the very same vehicle having extra fittings he has to pay cost Rs.83,000/- , though the 1^st instalment would be Rs.10,000/- the remaining monthly instalments would be Rs.2,850/- each.  By accepting the above conditions the complainant purchase one TVS two wheeler bearing registration No.KL-25 M-9635having extra fittings after paying Rs.10,000/- as advance.  But one month after its purchase the 1^st opposite party demanded extra Rs.3,500/- then the complainant replied him that there is no need of giving any amount to the 1^st opposite party because he has been remitting the instalments regularly in the concerned bank without any fail.  On 06.11.2019 when the complainant went for the 2^ndservice of the vehicle at the service centreof TVS at Punalurthe 1^st opposite party Sabu along with another person intimidated the complainant by saying that they will take away all the extra fittings of the vehicle if the complainant is not willing to pay the amount demanded by 1^st opposite party.  Thereafter they have forcefully removed all the extra fittings from the vehicle and resisted to release the vehicle from the service when the complainant tried to obstruct the above acts the opposite party blamed the complainant in public by using abusive words which caused much mental agony apart from financial loss to the complainant.  Thus the complainant filed a petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Punalur and after the intervention of police the complainant has received back the vehicle.  Thus the opposite parties 1 and 2 along with TVS Finance Credit Company have caused mental agony and financial loses to the complainant.  Hence the complainant claiming Rs.25,000/- from the opposite parties by way of compensation. 

According to opposite parties this complaint is false, frivolous as well as vexatious andthe same is filed with intend to harass the opposite parties hence it is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed inlimini.  The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act as there is no transaction regarding the vehicle between the complainant and opposite parties. There is nosuch 2^nd opposite party firm, as narrated in the complaint.  Thedisputed vehicle was sold to one Geethu.  The complainant has approached the Punalur police with a false complaint against the opposite parties but by understanding the nature of the complainant the police settled the matter between them and as per the terms of settlement the complainant had already returned the additional fittings carried out inthe alleged vehicle to the 1^st opposite party, as he has failed to effect payment of the same as assured.  When the complainant had raised some allegations against the financier of the vehicle the police advised him to initiate legal action against the financier separately.  All the details regarding the settlement made at Punalur police station was obtained as per Right to Information Act and the same are also produced herewith the version.As requested by the complainant the vehicle was fitted with extra fittings on 25.05.2019 and the bill amount for the same was Rs.4,414/-.  Instead of paying the above amount the complainant evaded from payment.  Opposite parties have neither threatened the complainant nor intimidated him at the service centre ofopposite party.  The Punalur police has not registered any crime case against the opposite parties in connection with the incident but they have closed the complaint by directing the complainant to return the additional fittings provided by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties were not made any delay in giving documents in connection with vehicle loan to the complainant.  The opposite parties have not caused any financial loss to the complainant.  Therefore there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party and its employees.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite parties.  The opposite parties further pray to dismiss the complaint with their costs.

     In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation?
3. Reliefs and Costs?

When the complaint is posted for recording evidence the complainant has not co-operated.  Hence the photocopies of documents produced along with the complaint has been marked as Ext.A1 to A8 subject to proof as the marking of the same has been objected by the opposite parties counsel.Opposite parties have produced one document which has been marked as D1 while considering the evidence.

The complainant has not turned up and advanced any argument.  Heard the counsel for the opposite party.

Point No.1 & 2

For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these two points are considered together.  Ext.A1 tax invoice,  Ext.A2 temporary Registration certificate, Ext.A3 Insurance certificate cum policy schedule, Ext.A4 sanction letter, Ext.A5 all the records and bills in connection with KL-25 M 9635.  Ext.A6 estimate, Ext.A7 cash receipt dated 25.05.2019.  Ext.A8 is a few entries from a bank accountissued by the Indian Bank .  All these documents are photocopies.  The document produced along with the version which is the reply to right to information bearing NO.5/RTI/2019-E dated 18.01.2020 issued from Police Station, Punalur.  It is marked as Ext.D1 for the purpose of disposal of the case.

The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that even if Ext.A1 to A8 photocopies of documents are accepted in evidence the same would not prove that the complainant herein is the registered owner of the motor cycle bearing No.KL 25-9635 nor would establish that the complainant has purchased it from the 1^st opposite party.Ext.A2 to A5, A7 documents would clearly indicate that the above motor cycle has been purchased and registered in the name of one Geethu.  The said Geethu may be the daughter of the complainant.  But the complainant has no claim that he purchased the said vehicle in the name of his daughter Geethu but he is the actual beneficiary of the vehicle.  Hence we are of the view that the complainant is  neither the person who purchased the vehicle by paying consideration nor he is the beneficiary of the same and it is also admitted that the loan was sanctioned in the name of the said Geethu.  In the circumstances the complainant would not come within the definition of consumer as defined under S 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

In view of the contentions of the opposite parties in the written version coupled with Ext.D1 reply to right to information it is clear that the complainant has not paid the value of extra fitting fitted on the vehicle on 25.05.2019, the opposite parties insisted payment or the return of the said extra fittings at the police station and the complainant has returned the extra fitting and settled the complaint filed by him.  The complainant has not turned up and adduced any evidence against the above contentions made by the opposite parties regarding the cost of extra fittings.  But the return of additional/extra fittings to the 1^st opposite party was admitted by the complainant.Asking to pay the cost of extra fitting obtained from the 1^st opposite party or insisting to return the same if he is not ready to pay its price would not amount to deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice as argued by the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

In view of the materials available on records it can be concluded that the complainant herein is not a consumer as per S 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complainant has also not established any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice against the opposite parties.  In the circumstances we find no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed.  The points answered against the complainant.

Point No.3

In the result complaint stands dismissed.

Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 29^th  day of  November 2021.

S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                  Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1                        : tax invoice

Ext.A2                        : temporary Registration certificate

Ext.A3                        : Insurance certificate cum policy schedule

Ext.A4                        : sanction letter

Ext.A5                        : all the records and bills in connection with KL-25 M 9635

Ext.A6                       : estimate

Ext.A7                       : cash receipt dated 25.05.2019.

Ext.A8                       : few entries from a bank account issued by the Indian Bank .

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-

Ext.D1                        : Reply of RTI Application