Date of Filing : 30.04.2021
Date of Disposal: 30.08.2022
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,B.Com. ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.36/2021
THIS TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Mr.S.Sakayam, S/o.Subramani,
No.1/85, School Street,
Poonimangadu Village,
Thiruttani Taluk. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.Southern Auto Centre,
No.660, Mount Road,
Nandanam, Chennai – 35.
2.Sri Balaji Motors,
No.52, Bypass Road,
Thiruttani -631 209. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.R.Sridhar, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties 1& 2 : exparte
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 10.08.2022 in the presence of M/s.R.Sridhar Advocate, counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by 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 against the opposite parties with regard to the purchase of Hero Honda Splendor Plus along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant by the opposite parties due to the deficiency in service along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The complainant purchased the vehicle from the 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party on 07.11.2018 by availing loan from Sriram City Union Finance for a total sum of Rs.67,770/- which includes the accessories and the two wheeler delivered on 07.11.2018 with chassis No.MBLHARO77JHK 60013 and Engine No.HA10AHJHKE5078 and both the opposite parties promised the complainant to register the vehicle with RTO Office, Thiruttani for which the registration charges were received by them. On production of the two wheeler by the complainant before RTO, Thiruttani he came to know that the opposite parties had not delivered the vehicle with chassis No.MBLHARO77JHK 60013 and Engine No.HA10AHJHKE5078 but with the different chassis number and engine number and therefore the complainant requested both the opposite parties to solve the problem but they failed to resolve the issue. Hence aggrieved after issuance of a legal notice dated 07.11.2020 the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and cost of this proceedings.
On the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A6. In spite of sufficient opportunities the opposite parties did not appear before this Commission and they were called absent and set ex-parte on 02.06.2022 for non appearance and for non filing of written version.
Points for consideration:
1. Whether the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties has been successfully proved by the complainant?
2. If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:
On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of his complaint allegations;
Purchase bills and invoice dated 07.11.2018 &12.13.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;
Payment receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of complainant was marked as Ex.A2;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 07.11.2020 was marked as Ex.A3;
Acknowledgement card and receipt for the proof of service were marked as Ex.A4 & Ex.A5;
Aadhaar card was marked as Ex.A6;
The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the opposite parties from whom the complainant had purchased a two wheeler had delivered a deferent vehicle other than one which was assigned to him vis chassis No.MBLHARO77JHK 60013 and Engine No.HA10AHJHKE5078 already assigned and thus the complainant unable to register the vehicle with the RTO Office at Thiruttani. The aspect that the vehicle delivered was with different chassis No.MBLHARO77JHK 60013 and Engine No.HA10AHJHKE5078 came to know to the complainant only when he took the vehicle for registration. Several attempts were made by the complainant requesting the opposite parties to rectify the defects but they failed to do so. Thus the counsel for the complainant sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.
We heard the oral arguments and perused the documents and written arguments filed by the complainant. Vide Ex.A2 we could see that the vehicle was purchased from the 2nd opposite party for a cost of Rs.67,770/- and vide Ex.A3 the legal notice we could see that the complainant had issued a legal notice to the opposite parties aggrieved by their act of not rectifying the error committed by them in delivering a wrong vehicle Ex.A4 &Ex.A5 are the acknowledgements to show that the legal notice has been received by the opposite parties. Thus when the opposite parties did not reply for the legal notice sent by the complainant and also did not appear before this Commission to defend the complaint allegations, we are of the view that the complaint allegations with regard to delivery of a wrong vehicle by the opposite parties has been successfully proved by the complainant. In such circumstances, we hold that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in delivering a different vehicle other than one purchased by the complainant and also in not rectifying the error committed by them. Thus we answer this point in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2:
With regard to the prayer to be granted to the complainant, the complainant has prayed for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, we are of the view that the complainant had not prayed for a direction to direct the opposite parties to deliver the original two wheeler. In the interest of justice and for issuance of an appropriate relief to the consumer/complainant as the object of Consumer Protection Act was to give reliefs to the consumers, we direct the opposite parties to deliver the original two wheeler with chassis No.MBLHARO77JHK 60013 and Engine No.HA10AHJHKE5078 which was actually sold to the complainant. If the same is not possible, the opposite parties may be directed to refund the cost of Rs.67770/-, the cost of the two wheeler paid by the complainant. For the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant we order Rs.25,000/- as compensation. Further Rs.10,000/- was ordered as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties;
a) to deliver the original two wheeler with the chassis No.MBLHARO77JHK 60013 and Engine No.HA10AHJHKE 5078 or in alternative to refund Rs.67,770/- 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 and hardships caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within four 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 30th day of August 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 07.11.2018 &13.12.2018 Purhcase bill and Invoice. Xerox
Ex.A2 .............. Payment receipt Xerox
Ex.A3 07.11.2020 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the oppostie parties. Xerox
Ex.A4 ............ Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A5 ................ Postal receipt. Xerox
Ex.A6 ............. Aadhaar card of the complainant. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:
Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
