KERALASTATE CONSUMENR DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.608/02
JUDGMENT DATED.18.06.08
PRESENT:-
SRI.M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
Rajan Pillai, S/o Narayana Kurup,
Kunnayyathu Veedu, Panappatty Muri, : APPELLANT
Sastham Cotta
Vs
1.The Manager,
Venad Auto Mobile, Curzon Road,
Kollam.
2. The Managing Director : RESPONDENTS
Hero Honda Motors Ltd
Vasath Vihar, New Delhi
(By Adv.Shibu Thankappan for R1&R2)
3.The Proprietor,
Allied Engineers/Service Dealer,
Hero Honda, Mundakkal,
TVM Road, Kollam
(By Adv.S.G.Jayan)
JUDGMENT
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER
The order dated.4.6.02 in OP.No.381/2000 of CDRF, Kollam is being assailed by the complainant himself wherein his complaint is being partly allowed directing the third opposite party to hand over the vehicle to the complainant in good condition forthwith failing which he is entitled to get Rs.250/- per day from the date of the order of the Forum.
2. It is alleged by the complainant that he had filed the complaint as OP.No.338/98 against the first and second opposite parties whereby he received an order from the forum directing the aforesaid opposite parties to pay sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. While the aforesaid OP was under adjudication, the complainant had entrusted his vehicle to the third opposite party and his case is that when he went to take delivery of the vehicle, the third opposite party insisted for a certificate showing that the vehicle was having a mileage of 78 km per litre of petrol and when he refused to do so, the vehicle was detained by the third opposite party. In spite of his complaint before the police, the opposite parties did not hand over the vehicle and as such the complaint was filed praying for directions to the third opposite party to return the vehicle in good running condition after curing defects and to pay compensation of Rs.250/- per day from the date of detention till the date of delivery along with the amount required for Road tax, insurance and arrears of vehicle loan during the period which the vehicle was in the custody of the third opposite party.
3. The first and second opposite parties filed version contending that they were not necessary parties in the complaint and that it was only to delay the payment to the first and second opposite parties that the complainant had arrayed the first and second opposite parties in the complaint. The third opposite party filed version wherein it was stated that they had rectified the defects of the vehicle and had requested the complainant to take delivery. It was submitted by them that on 9.1.99 and 11.3.99 registered notices were sent to the complainant for taking delivery of the vehicle. It was pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the third opposite party and submitted that the complaint was misconceived and ill-motivated and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P8. On the side of the opposite parties the third opposite party filed three documents which were marked as Exts.D1 to D3.
5. We heard the counsel for the appellant who submitted his case based on the averments in the complaint and the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued before us that the lower forum has not appreciated the case of the complainant in its proper perspective. It is argued by him that the third opposite party insited for a certificate to the effect that the vehicle would get a mileage of 78 km per litre of petrol and it was because of the said insistence that he could not take delivery of the vehicle from the third opposite party. It is his very case that the respondent/third opposite party willfully and unlawfully denied the delivery of the vehicle at the instance and advice of the first and second opposite parties. He also submitted before us that the forum ought to have allowed all the prayers in the complaint.
6. The first and second respondents filed an argument note wherein it is submitted by them that they were unnecessary parties. However, we find no orders against the first and second opposite parties in the complaint and in the appeal memorandum also the complainant/appellant has not made any serious allegations against the first and second opposite parties/respondents except the statement that the third opposite party acted in connivance with the first and second opposite parties.
7. On a perusal of the records and on hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we find no substantive evidence against the first and second opposite parties and as such the complaint as well as the appeal against the first and second opposite parties stand dismissed.
8. The complainant/appellant has raised serious allegations against the third opposite party. Though the third opposite party did not enter the box and give evidence, he had produced two letters dated.9.1.99 and 11.3.99 which are marked as Ext.D1 and D2. The acknowledgement card was also produced to show that the complainant had received the third opposite party’s letter dated.11.3.99 requesting to take the delivery of the vehicle. It is to be noted that the complainant has not replied to the above letter though it is seen that he has made a police complaint before the East police Station, Kollam. It is also observed that the complaint to the East Police Station is dated.13.1.99. But no reply is given to Ext.D2 dated.11.3.99 sent by the third opposite party. If the complainant/appellant had any objections to the said letter he would have replied to the third opposite party and instead of doing so he has filed the complaint before the forum on 13.5.01. However the forum has directed the third opposite party to hand over the vehicle in good condition and if the same is not done, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.250/- per day from the date of the order of the forum which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. .
In the aforesaid circumstances we find no reasons to interfere with the order dated.4.6.02 in OP.No.381/2000 of CDRF, Kollam. Hence the appeal is dismissed but without costs.
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
SRI.M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
R.AV
