BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI M.CHRISTOPHER,
PRESIDENT.
SRI K.VINODH REDDY,
MEMBER.
. . .
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 08 OF 2016
Between:
Abbanaboina Chandramouli S/o Laxmaiah, Aged: 29 years,
Occ: Private Employee, R/o Chittempahad Village of
Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District.
…COMPLAINANT.
AND
- The Manager, Chandrika Bajaj, Authorized Vehicle Sales
and Service, Sub Dealer, Kasthala X Roads, Chandur Village
and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
- Gadepaka Ravi S/o Narsimha, Aged: 28 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Nampally Village and Mandal of Nalgonda District.
…OPPOSITE PARTIES.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on this day, in the presence of Sri S.Venkata Ramana Swamy, Advocate for the Complainant, and the Opposite Parties No.1 and No.2 having been set exparte, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER OF THE FORUM DELIVERED
BY SRI K.VINODH REDDY, MEMBER
1. This complaint is filed by Sri Abbanaboina Chandramouli, to direct the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only) towards cost of the vehicle, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards mental agony with interest @ 18% p.a. and costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only).
2. The facts leading to file this complaint are as follows:
The Opposite Party No.2 who is doing business in the name of Bhagyalaxmi Multri Brand Showroom, having its office at Nampally
Contd…2
-2-
Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. As the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 hails from the same Mandal, having acquaintance, the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.2 to purchase a motorbike, on the advice of the Opposite Party No.2, both the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 went to the shop of the Opposite Party No.1 and after negotiations the Complainant had came to a decision to purchase Bajaj Pulsar 150 DTS motorcycle at cost of Rs.80,000/- from the Opposite Party No.1.
3. On 28/12/2012 the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only) to the Opposite Party No.1 by way of receipt bearing No.99, who in turn handed over the Bajaj Pulsar 150 DTS, bearing Engine No.DHGBVB31810, Chassis No.MD2DHDHZZVCB along with vehicle delivery form. Further, the Opposite Party No.1 promised the Complainant to hand over all required papers for registration of the vehicle within few days by receiving remaining Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) due from the Complainant.
4. When the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 along with Rs.10,000/- due by him and requested the Opposite Party No.1 to give the required papers for registration of the vehicle, but the Opposite Party No.1 dodged the matter for number of days. Vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant had approached his common friend who is the Opposite Party No.2 and explained the situation and at that time the Opposite Party No.2 suggested to the Complainant to return back the vehicle.
Contd…3
-3-
5. On the advice of the Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant had handed over the vehicle to the Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 for the amount he paid. As there is no response from the Opposite Party No.2 who received the vehicle, the Complainant had served legal notices to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, as there is no reply from the Opposite Party No.1 who received the legal notice and from the Opposite Party No.2 who rejected to receive the legal notice which was returned back to the Complainant. Hence this complaint.
6. The Opposite Party No.2 who refused to receive the notice sent from this Forum, was called absent on 02/07/2015 and set exparte.
7. The Complainant filed I.A.No.61/2015 under order-5 Rule-20 for publication on Opposite Party No.1 which was allowed, and thereafter on 17/03/2016 the Complainant filed publication copy. The Opposite Party No.1 called absent and set exparte.
8. The Complainant filed his proof affidavit and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the Complainant.
9. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the
Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 or not?
2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the claims he
made in his complaint? If so, to what extent?
10. PONT No.1:
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had purchased Bajaj Pulsar 150 DTS from the Opposite Party No.1 by paying a sum of
Contd…4
-4-
Rs.70,000/- which originally costs Rs.80,000/- by falling Rs.10,000/- due to the Opposite Party No.1 on the advise of the Opposite Party No.2.
11. As the Opposite Party No.1 did not furnish the required papers to the Complainant to register the said vehicle, the Complainant had approached Opposite Party No.2 and explained the situation to him.
12. The Opposite Party No.2 had advised the Complainant to return back the said vehicle and take back Rs.70,000/- which was originally paid. On the advise of the Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant had handed over the said vehicle bearing Engine No.DHGBVB31810, Chassis No.MD2DHDHZZVCB to the Opposite Party No.2 as per the affidavit of the Complainant.
13. On dated 07/09/2017 the Complainant had filed a third party affidavit, in the name of Sri Chapala Yadaiah S/o Narsimha, R/o Vaddepally Village of Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District, who in his affidavit stated that he is the common friend of the Complainant and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. In Para No.4 of his affidavit, the said Chapala Yadaiah who is the common friend of the Complainant and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, stated that, the said vehicle was handed over to the Opposite Party No.1 by the Complainant in his presence on 18/02/2013.
14. The statements in the affidavit of the Complainant and in the affidavit of Chapala Yadaiah contradicts each other on the issue of the
Contd…5
-5-
handing over the said vehicle, whereas the Complainant says in his affidavit that the vehicle was handed over by him to the Opposite Party No.2, but in the affidavit of Chapala Yadaiah, it is stated that the said vehicle was handed over to the Opposite Party No.1 in his presence. By the above said contradicting statements and affidavits and as there is no other recorded evidence, to whom the said vehicle was handed over, this Forum cannot come to a conclusion whether the said vehicle was handed over to the Opposite Party No.1 or to the Opposite Party No.2.
15. Hence, this Forum cannot fasten the deficiency of service on either of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
16. POINTS No.2 & 3:
In the light of the above discussion, where the Complainant did not prove that there is deficiency in service on either of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, the Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 12th day of September, 2017.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opposite Parties:
Affidavit of the Complainant. None.
Contd…6
-6-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1 Dt.28/12/2012 Original Receipt for Rs.70,000/- issued by
Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.A-2 Dt.28/12/2012 Original Delivery Challan, issued by
Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.A-3 Dt.23/09/2014 O/c of legal notice issued by the counsel for
the Complainant to the Opposite Parties.
Ex.A-4 Dt.23/09/2014 Postal Receipts (2).
Ex.A-5 Dt. Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.A-6 Dt.27/09/2014 Unserved Postal Cover addressed to OP-2.
For Opposite Parties :
Nil.
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
TO
1). Sri S.Venkata Ramana Swamy,
Advocate for the Complainant.
2). The Opposite Parties.
