Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1401/2023

RADHAKRISHNA B - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COM LTD - Opp.Party(s)

MOHAN MALGE

24 Aug 2023

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/1401/2023
( Date of Filing : 18 Jul 2023 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 21/06/2023 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/192/2022 of District Bangalore 2nd Additional)
 
1. RADHAKRISHNA B
ANNAYAPPA REDDY QURARTERS CHAMUNDIPURA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD J.P.NAGAR 6TH PHASE BANGALORE 560078.
BENGALURU URBAN
KARNATAKA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COM LTD
NO 309 ANJANEYA TRUST LAYOUT NELAMANGALA BYEPASS TUMKUR ROAD NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL 582123
BENGALURU RURAL
KARNATAKA
2. MANJUNATH
NO. 12 2ND MAIN 1ST CROSS NEAR ARUN STUDIO CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560018
BENGALURU URBAN
KARNATAKA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 24 Aug 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Dated: 24.08.2023

O R D E R

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

  1. This Appeal filed by complainant under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, aggrieved by an order dated 21.06.2023, passed in CC/192/2022 by II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (herein after referred as District Commission and the parties arrayed as in the consumer complaint)

 

  1. Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsel for appellant.

 

  1. Complainant/Appellant has raised Consumer Complaint before the Commission below alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs for non-transferring the ownership of the auctioned vehicle and for non-delivery of possession of the auctioned vehicle.  The Commission below after holding enquiry held – “There are no documents produced by the complainant to show that he participated in the auction and purchased the said vehicle”.  Further noted as – “The complainant has failed to establish that he paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the OPs to purchase the said vehicle.  The complainant has to establish his case to conclude deficiency of service against OPs.”  Thereby Commission below dismissed the complaint with no costs.  It is this order being assailed in this appeal contending that the impugned order passed by the Commission below is vague, vexatious, bad in law and liable to be set aside. 

 

  1. Learned counsel for appellant/complainant submits that respondent no.2/OP2 is an authorized agent and had participated in the said auction on behalf of appellant/complainant and the appellant/complainant has paid the bid amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to purchase the vehicle. OP2/respondent no.2 received the physical possession of the vehicle but with malafide intention not handed over the vehicle to appellant/complainant.  Further submits that respondent no.1/OP1 while conducting the auction proceedings had handed over the original documents like RC Book, Insurance and other relevant document in favour of complainant.  Presently documents are with the custody of appellant/complainant but the vehicle is running somebody else who is well known to OPs.  It is to be noted herein that complainant/appellant before the Commission below had produced Ex.P1 – Copy of the letter dated 01.03.2020, Ex.P3 – Copy of Registration Certificate, Ex.P4 – Copy of Forum No.42, Ex.P5 – Copy of Insurance and ongoing though all these documents could see that one Mr.Prathap M.G is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing no.KA41A4736.  Further to be noted herein that on 01.03.2020 respondent no.1/OP1 i.e., Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., had written letter to RTO, Nelamangala stating that they have no objection to issue Clearance Certificate for the vehicle bearing no.KA41A4736 of Mr.Prathap M.G to Mr.B.Radhakrishna, S/o Babu, R/at #36, Gulabi Garden, Jaraganahalli, JP Nagar, Bangalore-560078 to the RTO Jayanagar.  This letter also contains the signature of Mr.Prathap M.G in the applicant’s signature column. It is therefore, we are of the view that Mr.Prathap M.G who is the owner of the vehicle in auction has to be made as one of the party to the complaint, since he has signed in the letter dated 01.03.2020 and since the original documents of the auctioned vehicle is with appellant/complainant.  Thus keeping in mind the object of Consumer Law and in above view of the matter, to avoid further delay by dispense with issuance of notice of this appeal to respondent, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the Commission below to decide the case by impleading Mr.Prathap M.G. as one of the party to the complaint.  Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 passed in CC/192/2022 is hereby set aside and remanded the matter to Commission below to decide the matter in accordance with law and decide as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order by affording opportunity to both parties.

 

  1. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

 

Lady MemberJudicial MemberPresident

 

*GGH*

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.