BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 281/2008 Filed on 20.11.2008

Dated : 28.02.2009

Complainant:

Ahammed Noushad Sett,T.C 11/477, Nagarakavu Road, Parottukonam, Nalanchira P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite party:

Sree Aparna Motors, Chakrath Towers, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 11.02.2009, the Forum on 28.02.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant booked a Royal Enfiled Bullet with the opposite party on 08.09.2008 and paid Rs. 1,000/- as advance. When the complainant enquired with the opposite party in October whether the vehicle is ready for delivery, then the opposite party informed that there was no stock. Then the complainant purchased the vehicle from Marikar Motors in October. The complainant approached the opposite party for the refund of the advance booking amount. But the opposite party did not turn up to refund the advance booking amount. The complainant states that the Marikar Motors informed him that it is the usual practice to refund the advance booking amount.

The opposite party Aparna Motors accepted notice from this Forum, but did not turn up to contest the case. Hence the opposite party remains exparte.

Complainant was examined as PW1 and marked one document as Ext. P1.

Points to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?

2. Reliefs and costs.

The complainant produced the receipt issued by the opposite party for Rs. 1,000/- dated 08.09.2008 as advance. From the pleadings and evidence it is seen that the opposite party did not deliver the vehicle in time. Therefore the complainant purchased the vehicle from Marikar Motors to meet his needs. Hence the opposite party is liable to refund the advance amount to the complainant. Opposite party, the dealer received the amount as advance from the complainant for themselves, not for the manufacturer, hence the dealer, the opposite party is liable to refund the amount to the complainant. Moreover, the opposite party did not turn up to contest the case. Hence we are inclined to conclude that there is unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant and also shall pay Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as compensation and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as costs. Time for compliance one month, thereafter 12% annual interest also shall be paid on the above said amounts.

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.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 28^th February 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 281/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Ahammed Noushad Sett

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of receipt No. 550 dated 08.09.2008 for Rs. 1000/-.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT