Date of Filing : 13-01-2012
Date of Disposal : 17-07-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE.
PRESENT: SRI P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, B.A., B.L PRESIDENT
SRI K. UMAMAHESWARA RAO, M.A., B.L., MEMBER
This the 17th day of July, 2015
C.C.NO.4/2012
BETWEEN:
Poosala Kishore,
S/o Venkateswarlu,
Aged about 35 years,
Employee in ICICI Bank,
Ongole,
Prakasam District. … Complainant.
AND
1. M/s. Teja Cars,
Rep. by its proprietor A teja kumar,
Plot no.14, Dargamitta,
Nellore.
2. A.Teja Kumar,
Proprietor of M/s.teja cars,
Plot no.14, Dargamitta,
Nellore.
3. Sri Vaibhav Car consultancy,
Proprietor of M/s. Bogi sivashankar,
Dr. no.45-57-20/2,
Near Rythu Bazaar,
Narasimha Nagar,
Vishakhapatnam-530024. … Opposite parties.
This complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 coming on 10-07-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.L.Pavan Kumar, advocate for the complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3 called absent set ex-parte and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(ORDER BY Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)
1. The brief averments of the complainant as are fallows:-
The complainant wanted to purchase second-hand car and approached the 2nd opposite party who is the proprietor of the 1st opposite party. The complainant agreed to purchase a car for Rs.4,00,000/- shown by the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party agreed to arrange for the finance also. The complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- on three occasions towards the purchase price of the car. The 2nd opposite party promised to provide the car within a week. The 2nd opposite party failed to fulfill his promise. Finally, the complainant came to know that the 1st opposite party has a financial tie-up with Shriram Auto finance which gives a higher rate of interest. The complainant, having failed to get the car, requested the 2nd opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by him. The 2nd opposite party did not pay. Hence, the complaint for refund of the amount with interest, costs and damages.
2. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties did not contest the matter inspite of engaging an advocate. The 3rd opposite party remained ex-parte.
3. Now the point for consideration is “whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency of service”?
4. The complainant filed his affidavit and marked Exhibits A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is the Office copy of legal notice dated 23.09.2011. Ex.A2 is the Acknowledgment dated 27.09.2011 by 1st opposite party. Ex.A3 is the Acknowledgment dated 27.09.2011 by 2nd opposite party. Ex.A4 is the Statement of account of the complainant from 01.05.2011 to 30.06.2011. Ex.A5 is the Account copy of opposite party No.1. Ex.A6 is the Account copy of opposite party No.2. Ex.A7 is the Account copy of Sri Vaibhav car consultancy.
5. POINT: The complainant filed this case against M/s. Teja Cars, its proprietor and a car consultancy of Vizag. There is no allegation against the 3rd opposite party in the complaint. The dealing is between the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2 only. As such the 3rd opposite party is not answerable to the claim. The complainant contended that he paid Rs.50,000/- to the 2nd opposite party for purchase of a car. The payment of the above amount is clear from Ex.A4. The opposite parties are bound to provide a car to the complainant after arranging the finance. The opposite party has not provided car to the complainant. The opposite parties have not refunded the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainant. Non-payment of money received from another, without providing service, is a deficiency of service. The opposite parties committed a deficiency of service by not refunding the amount paid by the complainant. The complainant is entitled to recover the same from the opposite parties 1 and 2. The action of the opposite parties might have created mental agony to the complainant. Hence, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with costs of Rs.2,000/- are also granted. The point is held in favour of the complainant.
6. In the result, the complaint is allowed ordering the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% from the date of the complaint till realization along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-. The claim against the 3rd opposite party is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Shorthand-writer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 17th day of July, 2015.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY
NONE NONE
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:-
Ex.A1: 23.09.2011 : Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A2: 27.09.2011 : Acknowledgment by 1st opposite party.
Ex.A3: 27.09.2011 : Acknowledgment by 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A4: - : Statement of account of the complainant from 01.05.2011 to 30.06.2011.
Ex.A5 : - : Account copy of opposite party No.1.
Ex.A6 : - : Account copy of opposite party No.2.
Ex.A7 : - : Account copy of Sri Vaibhav car consultancy.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:- NIL
PRESIDENT
Copies to:
1. Sri P.L. Pavan Kumar, Advocate, Ongole
2. 1. M/s. Teja Cars Rep. by its proprietor A teja kumar, Plot no.14, Dargamitta, Nellore.
3. A.Teja Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.teja cars, Plot no.14, Dargamitta, Nellore.
4. Sri Vaibhav Car consultancy, Proprietor of M/s. Bogi sivashankar, Dr. no.45-57-20/2,
Near Rythu Bazaar, Narasimha Nagar, Vishakhapatnam-530024.
Date when free copy was issued:
//FAIR COPY//
