BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

22^nd DAY OF JUNE 2016

O R D E R

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- along with interest and to pay damages and cost of the litigation.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant intended to purchase a new Tata Star School Bus, 26+1 seat, LP 410/34/854.  OP has issued tax invoice on 30.06.2015.  The total value of the said vehicle is Rs.12,11,639/-.  The complainant has also intended to sell their old vehicle TATA 410 EIB bearing registration No.KA-10-B-8536.  OP agreed to purchase the same at the rate of Rs.3,25,000/-.  The OP was also having a customer, one Sri.C.Chandru to purchase the said vehicle at the above said rate.  The said C.Chandru has paid a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- to OP and executed the delivery note of the said vehicle.  In the delivery note the value of the vehicle mentioned as Rs.3,25,000/-but OP has not adjusted the entire sale amount of Rs.3,25,000/- to the complainants’ account of new vehicle.  OP has adjusted only a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.

The complainant has borrowed a loan of Rs.7,91,100/- from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., on the hypothecation of the new vehicle.  The complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,97,000/- to OP through cheque and OP has paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the sale consideration of the old vehicle belonging to the complainant.  The complainant has paid total sum of Rs.12,38,100/- to buy the new vehicle.  The OP has with-hold Rs.75,000/- out of Rs.3,25,000/- for the value of the old vehicle.  The complainant has checked and verified the account and requested the OP to repay the said balance amount of Rs.75,000/- which the OP has sold the old vehicle for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-.  OP has not returned the said amount of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant.  Complainant got issued legal notice to OP dated 12,08,2015 to repay the said amount with interest.  OP neither replied the notice nor repaid the amount.

For the aforesaid reasons, complainant prays for directing OP to pay Rs.75,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a and to pay damages and cost of litigation.

3. The notice of complaint was issued to the OP and despite service of notice, OP failed to appear and contest the complaint and has been placed ex-parte.  Thereafter, the complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence together with documents.

4. Perused the averments made in the complaint, affidavit filed in lieu of evidence, documents filed by the complainant and other materials placed on record.

5. Admittedly the complainant intended to purchase a new TATA STAR SCHOOL BUS, 26+1 seat, LP 410/34/854 through OP for a sum of Rs.12,11,639/-.  OP has issued tax invoice dated 30.06.2015.  Document to that effect is produced.  Complainant has also intended to sell the old vehicle TATA EIB bearing registration No.KA-B-8536.  OP has also agreed to purchase the said vehicle at the rate of Rs.3,25,000/-.  OP also having customer one Mr.C.Chandru for purchase the said vehicle at the said rate.  The said C.Chandru has paid a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- to the OP on 10.04.2015.  OP has executed a delivery note in favour of said C.Chandru.  Document to that effect is also produced by the complainant.

6. The complainant has borrowed a loan of Rs.7,91,100/- from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., on the hypothecation of the new vehicle.  Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- to OP through cheque and OP has adjusted only a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- out of Rs.3,25,000/- from the sale consideration of the old vehicle belonging to the complainant.  The complainant has totally paid a sum of Rs.12,38,100/- to OP to purchase the said new vehicle.  Document in that regard is produced.  But the OP has not adjusted the entire sale amount of Rs.3,25,000/- to the complainants’ account of new vehicle and only adjusted a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by withholding Rs.75,000/-.  This shows the purpose of OP is to make unlawful gain for himself.

7. The complainant is the customer and the OP is the service provider.  The OP has refused to repay the amount to the complainant.  It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP.  As per the terms & conditions mentioned in the delivery note of OP the exchange bonus amount of Rs.75,000/- is balance and it is yet to be paid by the OP.  As per their tax invoice dated 30.06.2015 the price of the vehicle is Rs.12,11,639/- but within one month the OP enhanced the price of the vehicle to Rs.13,16,917/- after placing order.  Complainant got issued legal notice to the OP on 12.08.2015 but there was no reply from the OP    The material placed on record by the complainant goes to establish that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

8. We don’t find any reasons to disbelieve the allegations made in the complaint as well as the sworn testimony of the complainant.  The evidence led-in by the complainant stands unchallenged.  The very fact of OP is not contesting the proceedings leads us to draw an inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant.  We are satisfied that the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be allowed.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

       O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a from 30.06.2015 till the date of realization.  Further OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service on the part of OP together with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

OPs shall comply the order passed by this Forum within a month from today.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 22^nd day of June 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 23.04.2016.

1. Sri.Siddagangaiah.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party - Nil

 Document produced by the Opposite party - Nil

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln*