Date of Filing : 03.12.2021
Date of Disposal : 15.11.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR. B.A., B.L., ....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L., ......MEMBER-II
CC. No.01/2022
THIS TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
Mr.M.Yogapriyan, S/o.Muthukrishan,
No.4, Ramasamy Street,
Venkateshwara Nagar,
Ambattur, Chennai -600 053. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
Sri Ram Motors, Rep. by its Proprietor
1.Patchaiyappan, (owner),
2.Ajai Selvan, (Deputy Manager),
office at Sakthi Towers,
No.882, MTH Road, Padi Chennai 600 050. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.E.Arunagiri, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : exparte
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 04.11.2022 in the presence of Mr.E.Arunagiri counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service in selling a two wheeler Fazer 250CC model 2020 along with a prayer to repay a sum of Rs.1,32,102/- for the cost of the vehicle price and to pay a sum of Rs.8,25,000/- towards compensation with 12% interest towards compensation for the mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The complainant after paying the full cost of Rs.1,32,102/- to the opposite party had purchased a vehicle vide receipt No.VR2000087 on 30.05.2020 with engine No.N.G3H7E0025004 and Frame No.ME1RG4228H0001284. It was assured by the opposite party that they will register the vehicle with RTO, Ambattur within one month and received all the documents necessary for registration. However when the complainant approached the opposite parties for registration he was given false promises and was dragged on without registering the vehicle. After one and half years, in July 2021 the complainant came to know that the vehicle sold to the complainant could not be registered. Until that time he was cheated by the opposite parties without registering the vehicle. Thereafter a legal notice was issued to the opposite parties on 07.08.2021 for which a formal reply was sent by them on 12.10.2021. Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in selling a vehicle which was not competent for registration, the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs;
To repay a sum of Rs.1,32,102/- for cost of the vehicle price;
To pay a sum of Rs.8,25,000/- towards compensation with 12% interest towards compensation for the mental agony;
To pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to A9 were submitted. Though the 1st opposite party filed Vakalath he did not turn up before this commission to file any written version and hence he was called absent and was set exparte on 01.07.2022 for non filing of written version within the mandatory period. In spite of sufficient opportunities the 2nd opposite party did not appear before this Commission and hence he was called absent and set ex-parte on 01.07.2022 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within the mandatory period.
Points for consideration:
Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in selling a vehicle Fazer 250CC model 2020 which is not competent for registration as per the existing Rule thereby committing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point:1
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of her contentions;
Vehicle booking receipt for a sum of Rs.30,000/- dated 25.05.2020 was marked as Ex.A1;
Vehicle booking receipt for a sum of Rs.95,000/- dated 27.05.2020 was marked as Ex.A2;
Insurance copy dated 06.10.2020 was marked as Ex.A3;
Tax Invoice issued by the opposite party in the name of complainant dated 29.12.2020 was marked as Ex.A4;
Tax Invoice issued by the opposite party in the name of complainant dated 31.03.2021 was marked as Ex.A5;
Form of Trade Certificate was marked as Ex.A6;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 07.08.2021 was marked as Ex.A7;
Reply from the opposite party dated 12.10.2021 was marked as Ex.A8;
CD was marked as Ex.A9;
Heard the oral arguments and perused the written arguments, pleadings and material evidence produced by the complainant.
The sum and substance of the arguments adduced by the complainant was that after the purchase of the vehicle for Rs.1,32,102/-on 30.05.2020, the opposite parties cheated the complainant dragging him without registering the vehicle until July 2021. When the complainant enquired he came to know that the vehicle Fazer 250CC model 2020 could not be registered as the vehicle was prohibited as per the Government Norms. Thus cheated by the opposite parties the complainant has come on with the present complaint seeking for refund of the vehicle cost, compensation etc.,
The complainant had filed the vehicle booking receipts Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 which shows that the opposite parties had sold the vehicle to the complainant. Further the subject vehicle was insured with Chola MS General Insurance Limited which was evident as per the Ex.A3. The Tax Invoices issued by the opposite parties for the subject vehicle were marked as Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 in which it is seen that the vehicle with the engine No.N.G3H7E0025004 and Frame No.ME1RG4228H0001284 was sold by the opposite parties for a total sum of Rs.1,32,102/-. The form of Trade Certificate for the two wheelers was marked as Ex.A6. The legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties was marked as Ex.A7 and the reply notice issued by the opposite parties was marked as Ex.A8 in which it is seen that the opposite parties had contended that the complainant had purchased the vehicle knowingly about the ban of the vehicle with a discount of Rs.31,000/- and it is also stated by them that once the Government Authorities calls the vehicle for the registration process they will do the same without delay. In the present case the complainant has proved by materials Ex.A1, ExA2, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 that the vehicle was purchased from the opposite parties. No normal prudent man would purchase a vehicle for a huge price of Rs.1,32,102/- knowing that the vehicle could not be registered and the same was banned by the Government. The contention of the opposite parties in the reply notice that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on discount knowing well about the ban of the vehicle could not be accepted for want of any material evidence on their side. In such circumstances we arrive at the conclusion that the opposite parties knowing well about the ban of the vehicle had sold the same to the complainant only with the motive of cheating him. Further if the complainant had purchased the vehicle knowing that the same is not competent to be registered there is no necessity for him to approach the opposite parties again and again requesting to register the vehicle and also to come on with the present complaint before this commission. Thus we hold that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in selling the subject vehicle with an ulterior motive to cheat the complainant which also amounted to clear unfair trade practice. Thus the point is answered accordingly holding that the complainant had successfully proved that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in the sale of the vehicle.
Point No.2:
As we have held above that the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties has been proved we feel that the complainant should be compensated adequately interms of money for the mental agony and hardship suffered by them and hence we direct the opposite parties to refund the vehicle cost of Rs.1,32,102/- directing the complainant to return the vehicle to the opposite parties along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- which we thought would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further we order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. Thus we answer the point accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing them;
a) to refund a sum of Rs.1,32,102/- (Rupees one lakh thirty two thousand one hundred and two only), the cost of the vehicle on complainant returning the vehicle within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 15th day of November 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 25.05.2020 Vehicle booking receipt for a sum of Rs.30,000/- Xerox
Ex.A2 27.05.2020 Vehicle booking receipt for a sum of Rs.95,000/- Xerox
Ex.A3 06.10.2020 Insurance copy. Xerox
Ex.A4 29.12.2020 Tax Invoice. Xerox
Ex.A5 31.03.2021 Tax Invoice. Xerox
Ex.A6 23.01.2020 Form of Trade Certificate. Xerox
Ex.A7 07.08.2021 Legal notice sent by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A8 12.10.2021 Reply notice. Xerox
Ex.A9 .............. Photos with CD. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party;
Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
