By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Facts of the case in brief :- In the first week of February 2017 the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for the purchase of a 2017 model Bajaj Autorikshaw and the Registration Certificate owner of KL-73/946, Sri. Sidhique @ Bawa, who is the father of the Complainant, sold his autorikshaw to the Opposite Party for Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five thousand only). The sale proceeds of this autorikshaw, Rs.65,000/- was agreed to be adjusted in the purchase price of the 2017 model autorikshaw which was intended to be purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party, KVR Motors, Muttil P.O, Kalpetta. It was further agreed that the balance purchase price of the 2017 model autorikshaw Rs.1,36,000/- should be paid in monthly instalments. The Opposite Party had not given any document as evidence containing such conditions to the Complainant. The Complainant further alleged that the estimated sale price of the autorikshaw was Rs.2,10,000/- . The Complainant had signed and delivered all the documents as demanded by the Opposite Party. As per the conditions of sale the
Opposite Party had agreed that he should register the vehicle, pay the insurance amount and transfer the documents within one week to the Complainant. But the Opposite Party had not delivered such documents to the Complainant so far. As the Opposite Party did not deliver the documents of vehicle No. KL 73A 9702 the Complainant could not drive or put the vehicle on road, and hence he could not remit the hire purchase instalment for three months. Though the Complainant demanded the records from the Opposite Party on many occasions, the Opposite Party was not willing to deliver them to the Complainant. The Complainant is willing to remit the balance amount due to the Opposite party. Hence, the Complainant has approached this commission with prayers to direct the Opposite Party to:-
- Deliver the documents such as RC, IC etc of vehicle No.KL 73A 9702 autorikshaw to the Complainant with immediate effect.
- Pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the Complainant and
- Extend such other relief as the Commission deems fit etc.
3. The Commission registered a case and notice was served on the Opposite
Party. The Opposite Party entered appearance and version was filed. In the detailed version filed, the Opposite Party denied all the allegations of the Complainant. According to the Opposite Party the Complainant had not approached the Opposite Party for purchase of autorikshaw; his father had not sold any autorikshaw to the Opposite Party; No agreement or conditions of sale had been made between the Complainant and the Opposite Party; there has been no evidence as to the sale or purchase of the autorikshaws mentioned in the complaint; the Complainant is trying to create records in respect of autorikshaw purchased from somewhere else; the complaint is lodged with frivolous and fabricated contentions. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost of the Opposite Party.
4. Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant, documents A1 to A3 and X1 series were marked from his side and he was examined as PW1. Chief affidavit was also filed by the Opposite Party and he was examined as OPW1. Siddique @ Bawa, the Complainants father also was examined as PW2.
5. In chief affidavit and oral evidence, the Complainant has reiterated all his allegations. In chief examination PW2 has stated that the price of the new vehicle was Rs.2,02,000/-. He has also stated that after adjusting Rs.65,000/- being the exchange price of the old autorikshaw, for the balance amount, KVR Motors (The Opposite Party) had given vehicle finance. He has also stated that only one instalment has been paid during the complaint period of seven months. He has reiterated the other allegations of the Complainant.
6. Though the Opposite Party had denied the sale of the autorikshaw to the Complainant in the complaint, he has admitted the sale of the autorikshaw to the Complainant in the chief affidavit filed by him. The Opposite Party contents that at the time of purchase of the autorikshaw the Complainant had registered it and it was also insured. As the Complainant had registered the autorikshaw by him no documents are remaining to be delivered by him to the Complainant. The Opposite Party also alleged that it can be understood from the statements of the Complainant in the complaint that the Complainant had availed loan from the financing company and there may have disputes between the Complainant and the financing company. The OPW1 in cross examination has stated that the Opposite Party company does not give any exchange offer for vehicles.
7. On detailed perusal of the complaint, version, documents marked, affidavits filed and oral evidences adduced by the Complainant and the Opposite Party the Commission raises the following points for consideration.
- Whether there has been any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party?
- If so whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
8. Point No.1 and 2:- For the purpose of convenience and brevity both the
points are considered together.
Ext.X1(a) document submitted and marked by the Complainant is the copy of Registration Particulars of vehicle No.KL-73A 9702 which reveals that the vehicle is hypothecated to Bajaj Finance Ltd. So there should have been a hypothecation agreement between the Complainant and the vehicle financing company, Bajaj Finance Ltd. The Complainant himself has admitted that only one instalment has been remitted in respect of the price of the vehicle. PW2 has stated in oral evidence that only one instalment has been paid during the complaint period of seven months. KVR Motors is the Opposite Party in the complaint but the financing company Bajaj Finance Ltd., is not a party to the complaint. The Complainant has admitted that he is willing to remit the dues together with interest in respect of the balance price of the vehicle. His only grievance is to get back the documents (RC, IC etc) of the vehicle. As the vehicle is hypothecated to the Financing company, Bajaj alliance Ltd., and as the Complainant is willing to remit the dues with interest, he is at liberty to approach the financing company for remedy of his grievance. No documents have been submitted before the Commission by the Complainant to prove that the documents of the vehicle have been detained under the custody of the Opposite Party. So as per the evidences and documents submitted before the Commission we are of the
view that there has been no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost is ordered to either party.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Commission on this the 17th day of March 2021.
Date of filing:24.07.2017.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witnesses for the complainant:
PW1. Mubasheer . N. K Complainant.
PW2. Sidhique. N.K. News Paper Agent.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Jithin Mathew. Manager P & A.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Affidavit. dt:26.02.2018.
A2. Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:07.08.2017.
A3. Copy of Reply Notice. dt:19.09.2017.
X1(a) Copy of Registration Particulars.
X1(b) Copy of Retail Invoice. dt:16.03.2017.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
