D.O.F:09/12/2020
D.O.O:29/12/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.171/2020
Dated this, the 29th day of December 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Savad P,
S/o Mohammed Koya,
Near Carewell Hospital
Nullippady, Kasaragod,
Post: Kasaragod – 671121.
(Adv: K. Kumaran Nair & Sabari L. S.)
: Complainant
And
The General Manager,
Kerala Cars Pvt. Ltd., 508A,
Illikatu Buildings,
Kunamthayi,
Near Edappaly,
Kochi – 682024.
(Adv: George Cherian Karippaparambil & A. Radhakrishnan) : Opposite Party
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The complainant is a business man, and opposite party is a retailer of cars including used cars. Complainant approached opposite party to purchase a good used car and the opposite party informed that they were having a used Ford endeavour 3.2 Ltr Titanium plus 4×4 AT car being registration No.PY03.B1067 was shown to the complainant for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. The opposite party further intimated that some documents of the car were to be cleared and it would require one month at the most. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- by way of cheque towards the order booking and advance payment. As per the terms of transaction, the opposite party had undertaken to get all the documents related to the vehicle and to forward copy of the said necessary documents to the complainant for verification and for processing sale proceedings within a maximum period for one month. The complainant wanted the said papers for arranging a finance facility for the said vehicle. The complainant had assured to pay the balance amount and get the vehicle formerly transferred in his name on getting the documents. The complainant was ready and willing to pay the balance amount and to get the transaction completed at any time. The authorized staff of the opposite party, one Mr. Ajmal (phone: 9746285027, 95678965050) and the complainant were in frequent contact . But when the assured period of one month was over, the said staff of the opposite party offered some lame excuses for the delay on their part. As there was an uncertainty on the part of the opposite party, the complainant caused to issue a registered notice dated 15/09/2020 to the opposite party calling upon him to complete the sale transaction and to transfer the vehicle to the complainant at the earliest. The opposite party issued a reply notice dated 16/10/2020 raising some false contentions and stating that they sold the vehicle to another person. The contention of the opposite party that the complainant failed to arrange the balance amount and after the expiry of 30 days inspite of repeated contacts from opposite party to the complainant are false and baseless. There was no intimation from the side of opposite party and it is not correct that the opposite party sold the said vehicle at Rs. 28,50,000/- to a third party. The opposite party has deliberately defrauded the complainant. The opposite party has not collected the vehicular documents and sent them to the complainant as assured. So, the said failure on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service. The transfer of the said vehicle to another person without intimating to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice. The opposite party is still keeping with them the advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid by the complainant. The opposite party is liable to refund the said amount with interest. The said deficiency of service on the part of opposite party has caused great mental agony, harassment and hardship to the complainant. The complainant moderately assess the compensation for the same at Rs.2,00,000/- and the opposite party is liable to pay the same. The cause of action for the complaint arose on 20/07/2020 on the date of advance payment and on 16/10/2020, the date of the registered notice by the opposite party and subsequently at Kasaragod Village from where the transaction occurred. Therefore, the complainant is seeking refund of the advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- with 12% interest from 20/07/2020 till payment with a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with cost of litigation.
The opposite party filed version. According to them, this consumer complaint is prima face, not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case against opposite party. All the averments in the complaint except to the extent specifically admitted hereunder are false and are denied by the opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party had failed to obtain the vehicle documents and transfer the same to the complainant as promised earlier. Again, the allegation that opposite party sold the vehicle at Rs. 28,50,000/- to a third party is also false and denied by the opposite party. The claim of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the alleged great mental agony, harassment and hardship against the opposite party is baseless and not legally sustainable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The opposite party submits that they were ready with the vehicle documents, the sale letter from the owner of the vehicle, the form of transfer of ownership in RC, form for transfer for insurance on 20/07/2020 itself. The booking amount of Rs. 50,000/- only was accepted only on 20/07/2020 on the complainant’s specific promise to tender the price of the vehicle within 30 days. Inspite of several reminders, complainant has failed to tender the balance price of the vehicle Rs. 29,50,000/-. After the expiry of 30 days, opposite party repeatedly contacted the complainant and requested for payment of Rs.29,50,000/- without further dely. But the complainant had financial difficulties and not able to raise Rs. 29,50,000/-, the balance price of the vehicle. The opposite party waited till 31/08/2020. Thereafter intimated the complainant that the opposite party is looking for another purchaser since the complainant has failed to tender the balance price of 29,50,000/. The opposite party further directed the complainant to furnish his bank account details for transferring the booking amount of Rs. 50,000/-. On failure on the part of the complainant to arrange the balance amount, the opposite party has found another purchaser Mr. Sakkariya, Kaithapilly House for the vehicle on 02/09/2020 for an amount of Rs.. 28,50,000/-. The said purchaser has paid the amount in instalments between 02/09/2020 to 15/09/2020. Accordingly, the opposite party has sold the said vehicle to Mr. Sakkariya on 15/09/2020. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party. The complainant has approached the Hon’ble Commission suppressing the material facts. The opposite party has produced the crossed DD of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant along with version. The complainant was offered the said amount and requested him to furnish his bank particulars for transferring the said amount to the complainant. The opposite party is not liable to pay any interest on the said some of Rs. 50,000/-. The compliant is bereft of any bona fides and liable to dismissed with the cost of the opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined as PW1. The documents produced are marked as Ext.A1 to A3. The opposite party also filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as DW1. Both side heard and documents verified.
The main questions raised to consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in not delivering the Ford endeavour to the complainant within one month?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, all points can be discussed together. The complainant approached opposite party to purchase a good used car. The opposite party showed a used Ford endeavour car and both parties entered into an oral agreement. As per the agreement, the complainant had given an advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- and opposite party offered to give the vehicle documents to arrange loan. Even after the acceptance of the advance amount the opposite party also failed to perform his part and withdrawn himself from the contract. The evidence adduced in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant (PW1) and the documents marked as Ext.A1 to A3 on complainant’s side. On the part of opposite party, the senior manager one Mr. Santhosh filed affidavit and is cross examined as DW1 by complainant’s counsel. No documentary evidence on the side of opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that, he has been defrauded by the opposite party in connection with the booking of used car Ford endeavour shown to the complainant for Rs. 30,00,000/-. Even though opposite party received the advance amount of Rs.50,000/-, neither the vehicular documents given to the complainant to arrange loan to the complainant, nor the vehicle is sold to him. The complainant has produced Ext.A1 receipt to prove the booking of the vehicle on 20 July 2020. The opposite party sold the vehicle to a third party and not supplied the documents of the vehicle inspite of repeated requests from the complainant. The opposite party had undertaken to collect all documents related to the vehicle and forward the copy of the said necessary documents to the complainant for verification and for processing sale proceedings within a maximum period for one month. The complainant wanted the said documents for arranging vehicle loan for purchasing the vehicle. Even though the complainant had assured to pay the balance amount and get the vehicle transferred in his name on getting the documents. But when the assured period of one month was over, opposite party informed some lame excuses for the delay on their part. As there was uncertainty on the part of opposite party, the complainant caused to issue a registered notice dated 15/09/2020 to the opposite party calling up on him to complete the sale transaction and transfer the vehicle in his name, the aforesaid notice is marked as Ext.A2. The opposite party issued a reply notice dated 16/10/2020 raising some false contentions stating that they have sold the vehicle to another person, marked as Ext.A3. The opposite party sold the vehicle at Rs. 28,50,000/-. The main contention of the opposite party is that they accepted the booking amount of Rs. 50,000/- only on 20/07/2020, on the complainant’s specific promise to tender the price of the vehicle within 30 days, but the complainant failed to arrange the balance price of the vehicle Rs. 29,50,000/- after repeated reminders.
In the version, the opposite party denied the allegations of complaint that the vehicle is sold to a third party. But DW1 deposed before the commission that they sold the vehicle to one Mr. Sakkariya for 28,50,000/-, but they did not produce any document to prove the same. The opposite party did not produced any documents to prove the communication they had made with the complainant for informing him the sale of the vehicle. The opposite party claimed that they had given necessary documents for availing the vehicle loan to the complainant within the time fixed. But it is not supported by any documentary evidence. The opposite party produced DD for Rs. 50,000/- on 16/03/2021 after 8 months of the payment. Both parties entered into an oral agreement before the acceptance of the advance amount. The opposite party failed to complete their part. So the complainant is seeking interest on advance amount and compensation from opposite party. The complainant is entitled for interest on the said amount as transaction is cancelled and vehicle is sold to another person for Rs. 28,50,000/-. The same vehicle was offered to the complainant for Rs. 30,00,000/-, selling for a higher price is usual, but here 1.50 lakh reduced with one month is surprising. The opposite party cancelled transaction with the complainant to sell the vehicle in a lower price. The contentions raised by opposite party is not supported by documentary evidence. Hence the complaint is allowed as prayed for. As the advance is already repaid by the opposite party to the complainant interest on Rs.50,000/- from the date of 20/07/2020 till disbursement has to be given to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- along with cost of its litigation.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed, directing opposite parties to pay interest at the rate of 9% from 20/07/2020 till disbursal with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) along with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Receipt
A2 – Registered notice issued by the complainant
A3 – Reply lawyer notice
Witness cross-examined
PW1 – Savad
DW1 – Santhosh A.V.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
