BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 475/2003 Filed on 02.12.2003<br /> Dated : 19.05.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Baiju, S/o Mohanan, Baiju Bhavan, Pulloormukku, P.C Mukku P.O, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By adv. R. Gopalakrishnan)<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.Sen Automobiles, Papanasam, Varkala.<br /> 2.Kinetic Finances Ltd., 4704, Pune-Mumbai Road, Pimpiri Chowk, Pimpiri, Pune – 411 018.<br /> (By adv. Emmanuel Chathanchira)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 21.11.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 22.04.2008, the Forum on 19.05.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER<br /> The complainant’s case is as follows: The 1st opposite party is the authorized dealer of M/s Kinetic Honda and also engaged in the line of servicing of Kinetic Model Two Wheelers at Varkala. The 2nd opposite party is a financing company at Pune under the Kinetic Management. The complainant is the purchaser of one Kinetic Nova two wheeler from the 1st opposite party under their exchange offer scheme. The wife of the complainant Smitha was the registered owner of the Kinetic Model Y2K 2000 series two wheeler Reg. No. KL-01 V 1974 which had been exchanged to get the new Kinetic Nova Reg. No. KL-16-5014. At the time of exchange the complainant and his wife have been informed that the difference of the cost of the new vehicle would be Rs. 19000/- only. Accordingly 19 blank signed cheques have been obtained from the complainant. On 4th August 2003 the complainant got an advocate notice from the 1st opposite party stating that the cheque No. 373081 dated 15.06.2003 for Rs. 1590/- has been dishonoured which is the monthly instalment. Immediately on receipt of the notice the complainant gave a reply notice requesting to settle the account by paying the entire amount in lump sum. The said notice has been accepted by the opposite parties but they have neither come forward to settle the account nor sent a reply to the same. In terms of the understanding the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 19000/- and interest 30% per annum from 15.06.2003 till the date of final payment. The opposite parties have acted in most negligent manner while dealing with the complainant and the complainant suffered mental agony and loss and is entitled to compensation. Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum for the redressal of his grievances. <br /> In this case the 1st opposite party Sen Automobiles set ex-parte. 2nd opposite party Kinetic Finances filed version contending that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party has no knowledge about the exchange price offered to the complainant by 1st opposite party. As per the hire purchase agreement executed by the 2nd opposite party the complainant is bound to pay Rs. 33000/- as capital and its interest. According to the 2nd opposite party the complainant filed this complaint to escape from the case under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. <br /> The following points are raised for trial:<br /> (i)Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?<br /> <br /> Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and 4 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. The 2nd opposite party filed counter affidavit. Thereafter the complainant and the 2nd opposite party settled the matter for Rs. 25300/- and the complainant submitted that he seeks relief against the 1st opposite party only. The claim against the 1st opposite party is Rs. 11300/- being the difference in price of the exchanged vehicle with interest and Rs. 5000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2000/- as cost. <br /> The complainant has not produced any document to prove the agreed value of the exchanged vehicle. And nothing on record to show that the difference of the cost between the exchanged vehicle and new vehicle supplied is Rs. 19,000/-. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. On going through the records on file, this Forum finds that the complainant has failed to prove his claim against 1st opposite party. <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 19th May 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> jb <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 475/2003<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS: <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS:<br /> <br /> P1 - True copy of Certificate of Registration for Reg. No. KL- <br /> 16/5041.<br /> <br /> P2 - True copy of policy schedule No. 100402/31/63/00717 dated <br /> 21.04.2003.<br /> P3 - True copy of reply notice dated 14.08.2003.<br /> <br /> P4 - True copy of letter dated 25.11.2004 issued to the opposite party <br /> from the complainant. <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S' WITNESS:<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS:<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />