By Sri. Jose V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint is for getting cost/loss/damages and compensation for the deficiency of service from the Opposite Parties and to return back the deposited amount with future interest.

Brief of the complaint:-

2. The Complainant placed an order with the 2^nd Opposite Party on 23.11.2011 for the supply of 5 tone tractor trailor with red colour, after discussions with its manager. The 2^nd Opposite Party assured that the trailor would be supplied within ten days of the order and on payment of 40% of the sale price. Accordingly on 24.11.2011 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.54,000/- to the 2^nd Opposite Party by way of RTGS. The Complainant also had a telephonic communication with 1^st Opposite Party before placing the order for the supply of tractor trailor.

3. The complainant was in urgent need of the trailor for the purpose of using the same for agricultural transportation but the Opposite Parties failed to honour their words and again the complainant contact the Opposite Party for getting delivery of the trailor but it was not materialised. Ultimately the Opposite Party expressed their inability to deliver the same stating that hike in trailor price in the meanwhile, accordingly the quotation/order given by the complainant had been cancelled and Opposite Party promised to return the advance amount paid by the Complainant with bank interest. However that promise was also not honoured.

4. Since the Opposite Parties has not supplied the trailor the complainant spent huge amount as hire charges for transportation and lost Rs.1,00,000/-. In the above circumstances the Complainant caused to send a registered lawyer notice to the Opposite Parties call upon to return the advance amount with interest and loss and damages. The Opposite Parties received the notice and but failed to comply the directions. Conversely the 2^nd Opposite Party caused to be send a reply lawyer notice on 04.09.2012 raising totally false and untenable contentions. All these are the deficiency of service from the part of the Opposite Party and prayed for a direction to return the advance amount received by them with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of receipt of payment till payment thereof and pay loss cost and damages /injury caused to him consequent to this.

5. The complaint filed on 01.01.2013 and notice was send to Opposite parties on

11.01.2013 and served on 12.01.2013 and 17.01.2013 respectively. 1^st Opposite Party not appeared before the Forum. For 2^nd Opposite Party Advocate P.V. Vinod kumar proposed vakalath and not filed vakalath and version. Hence Opposite Parties set exparte on 16.04.2013.

6. On considering the complaint, Chief affidavit and documents produced by the Complainant. The following points are to be considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

7. Point No.1:- To prove the Complainant's case in addition to the complaint he has filed proof affidavit, in the proof affidavit he has stated as stated in the complaint and he has also produced Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is the copy of the order form dated 23.11.2011. (vehicle purchase application) which shows that the complaint booked 5 tone trailor red colour (1) with Opposite Party. Ext.A2 is the copy of the e-mail communication send by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party. Ext. A3 series is the copy of lawyer notice with acknowledgment card and postal receipt. Ext.A4 is the reply lawyer notice send by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant's counsel. Ext.A5 is the confirmation of NEFT fund transfer which is issued by the Federal bank which shows that on 24.11.2011 by NEFT fund transfer an amount of Rs.54,000/- is transferred from Complainant's ACC account No. 13895500000011 vide cheque No.10027213 dated 24.11.2011 to 1^st Opposite Party (Soorya Motors Wayanad A/c No.CBCAO 1000014 in the corporation bank) account.

8. On perusing the complaint, chief affidavit and documents produced it is seen that the complainant booked a 5 tone trailor with Opposite party on 23.11.2011, and an amount of Rs.54,000/- is also given to 1^st opposite party it is evidenced from Ext.A5 document and even after cancellation of the quotation/order the 1^st Opposite Party has not refunded the advance amount of Rs.54,000/- to the Complainant. It is the deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party. As far as the service of 2^nd Opposite Party is concerned, the complaint is not produced any evidence or documents to prove that the 2^nd Opposite Party is received the advance amount and no evidence is to prove that the 2^nd Opposite Party have assured the delivery of trailor within 10 days of depositing the advance amount and hence 2^nd Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation as prayed. The point No.1 is decided accordingly.

9. Point No.2:- The complainant is entitled to get Rs.54,000/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of advance payment ie on 24.11.2011 till the date of payment and also entitled to get Rs.4,000/- as cost and compensation. The point No.2 is decided accordingly.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the 1^st Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.54,000/- (Rupees Fifty Four thousand) only with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date (24.11.2011) of advance payment till the date of payment and also directed to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand) only as cost and compensation to the Complainant.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 12^th day of July 2013.

Date of filing:01.01.2013.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N X I X

Witness for the Complainant:

Nil.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Vehicle Purchase Application. dt:23.11.2011.

A2. Copy of e-mail communication. dt:23.09.2011.

A3 series Copy of Notice, Postal Rceipt and Acknowledgment Card.

A4. Reply Notice. dt:04.09.2012.

A5. Letter. dt:30.05.2013.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.