Sri Ramesh,Prop:M/s EMAR Automotives (india)B2,Ground Floor 257,Adarsh Vihar Apartments ,Near Birla Temple ,Adarsh Nagar ,Hyderabad
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 13th day of April, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., President 2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member 3. Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B., Member C.C.No.133 of 2009 Between: Kancherla Nageswara Rao, s/o.Guravaiah, age: 27 yeas, occu: Privately employed, r/o.Chinthapalli village, Khammam Rural & District Complainant And Sri Ramesh, age:40 years, Prop. M/s.EMAR Automotives (India)B2, Ground Floor 257, Adarsh Vihar Apartments, near Birla temple, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad. Opposite party. This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of B.Kalyan Rao, Advocate for complainant; Notice of opposite party served and called absent; upon hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record; this Forum passed the following: ORDER (Per Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, Member) 1. This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the opposite party has conducted campaign of GALLOP make motor cycle near the village of complainant on 01-05-2009 complainant purchased motor cycle from opposite party on the same day for Rs.35,000/-, opposite party issued authorized sale letter to complainant, promising to handover book paper of said vehicle within 10 days from 2-5-2009, performance of the vehicle was not as per the assurance of opposite party, opposite party failed to handover the documents, complainant returned the vehicle as he could not ply the same without valid documents, opposite party had expressed inability to improve the mileage of the vehicle from 30 k.m. per liter, on demand of complainant, opposite party issued a cheque bearing No.219706, dt.6-7-2009 drawn in A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad for Rs.30,000/- in favour of complainant, said cheque pertaining to the account of M/s.Standard Resin industries, on presentation of the cheque for realisation opposite party failed to honor the same, thereby complainant got issued a legal notice, dt.2-10-2009, demanding to pay the cost of motor cycle with interest @ 24% P.A., the said notice was returned with postal endorsement Party refused, hence returned from the above, the complainant suffered hardship and agony due to disappointment caused by defective motor cycle sold by opposite party and also opposite party committed deficiency of service, as such complainant approached the Forum for redressal. 2. On receipt of the notice, opposite party called absent, no representation on behalf of opposite party, 3. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5. Ex.A.1 - Xerox copy of authorized sale letter, dt.1-5-2009 Ex.A.2 - Xerox copy of cheque bearing No.219706, dt.6-7-2009 Ex.A.3 - Xerox copy of cheque return memo, dt.31-8-2009 issued by Canara Bank, Khammam. Ex.A.4 - Office copy of legal notice, dt.2-10-2009 Ex.A.5 - Postal endorsement, dt.8-10-2009 on unserved Envelope. 4. Complainant filed chief affidavit and also represented to treat the contents of the complaint as written arguments. 5. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the point that arose for consideration is, 1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed for? 2. To what relief? Point No.1: 6. In this case the complainant purchased the Gallop make motor cycle on 1-5-2009 for Rs.35,000/- in his village, as opposite party conducted his product campaign. At the time of purchase, opposite party issued an authorized sale letter in favour of complainant and also promised to handover book paper of said vehicle within 10 days from 2-5-2009. After lapse of 45 days also opposite party failed to hand over the documents to the complainant and also performance of vehicle was not as per the assurance of opposite party i.e. mileage of 80 k.m. per liter. Complainant returned the vehicle to opposite party as he could not ply the same without valid papers. The opposite party expressed his inability to improve the mileage of the vehicle and also by taking back the vehicle, the opposite party had issued a cheque bearing No.219706, dt.6-7-2009 drawn on M/s.A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad for Rs.30,000/- in favour of complainant towards part payment of cost of the vehicle and the same was dishonoured. For that the complainant got issued legal notice and the same was refused by the opposite party. The opposite party is having knowledge about the dishonour of cheque, failed to respond either for replacement of new vehicle or for payment of cost of vehicle i.e.Rs.35,000/- is nothing but deficiency on his part. The same was observed by the Honble National Commission in Sachdeva Industries Vs. Deep Aggarwal and others I (2010) CPJ 120 (NC). In this case it was held that even on receipt of notice from the respondent, petitioner failed to respond either for replacement of machine or to put in order. The options given by the State Commission to the petitioner either for replacement of the equipment or for payment of its value along with interest @ 9% p.a. was judicious, based on meticulous appreciations of issues involved. We, accordingly, find no merit with revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. 7. As such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. Point No.2: 8. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to supply a new motorcycle with proper documents or to refund the cost of vehicle i.e. Rs.35,000/- together with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing complaint till realization, further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs, to the complainant. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 13th day of April, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for complainant: -None- Witnesses examined for opposite party -None- Exhibits marked for complainant: Ex.A.1 - Xerox copy of authorized sale letter, dt.1-5-2009 Ex.A.2 - Xerox copy of cheque bearing No.219706, dt.6-7-2009 Ex.A.3 - Xerox copy of cheque return memo, dt.31-8-2009 issued by Canara Bank, Khammam. Ex.A.4 - Office copy of legal notice, dt.2-10-2009 Ex.A.5 - Postal endorsement, dt.8-10-2009 on unserved Envelope. Witnesses examined for opposite party: -Nil- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
