DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A,B.L., .....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,.MCom., ICWA(Inter)., B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.83/2022
THIS TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
Mr.A.Ibrahim,
No.19D/2, Market Lane,
13th Street, Kaladipet, Chennai 600 019. .........Complainant.
//Vs//
The Proprietor,
M/s.Balaji Automotive,
No.570, T.H.Road,
Old Washernempet,
Opposite to Old Vaigai Mahal,
Chennai 600 021. ...Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.M.R.Radhakrishnan, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : Mr.R.Krishnan, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 08.11.2022 in the presence of M/s.M.R.Radhakrishnan Advocate, counsel for the complainant and Mr.R.Krishnan Advocate, counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in selling a second hand vehicle to the complainant when he had booked a New Honda Shine SP Motor Cycle along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.58,500/- with 12% interest from the date of booking to till or to replace new Honda Shine SP and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was submitted by the complainant that he wanted to purchase a New Honda Shine SP Motor Cycle from the opposite party on 30.03.2017 and had paid the entire cost of the Motor Cycle vide receipt No.18435 and booked New Honda Shine SP motors Cycle. When the complainant booked new Honda Shine SP Motor Cycle the opposite party had promised to deliver the same on 25.05.2021 and also informed that the registration of the motor cycle was TN-03U-9510. The complainant made repeated request to hand over original registration book but the opposite party asked complainant to pay Rs.500/- and the same was paid by the complainant on 04.01.2018 vide receipt No.13817. Further when the complainant received the registration book he was very much shocked to see that the registration book was registered first in the name of 1st opposite party and thereafter the registration book was transferred in the name of complainant on 09.01.2018. The opposite party had fraudulently without the knowledge and consent of the complainant had handed over second hand motor cycle to the complainant but had collected Rs.58,000/- from him for brand new motor cycle. On enquiry by the complainant the opposite party had failed to give any proper explanation for the same and they had treated the complainant badly. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs;
To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.58,500/- with 12% interest from the date of booking to replace new Honda Shine SP;
To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service;
To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony;
To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-
The opposite party filed version denying the complaint allegations contending inter alia that the complaint itself is not maintainable either in law or also on facts. At the outset, during the year April 2017, the Government of India strictly implements the Bharat Stage IV vehicle. Further the opposite party brought into the knowledge of the complainant that except second ownership no other changes in the new vehicle. The complainant paid an offer price of Rs.58,000/- to the opposite party on 30.03.2017 instead of original price of Rs.71,044/- and had booked Shine Motor Cycle. The complainant accepted and agreed for all the terms and conditions and then only booked the vehicle and therefore there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party. Thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.6 were marked on their side. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no documents was filed on their side.
Point for consideration:-
Whether the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in delivering a second hand vehicle to the complainant when he had booked a New Honda Shine SP Motor Cycle has been successfully proved by the complainant by any admissible evidence?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point:1
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Receipt for Rs.58,000/- issued by the opposite party dated 30.03.2017 was marked as Ex.A1;
Delivery note issued by the opposite party in their name dated 25.05.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;
Receipt for Rs.500/- issued by the opposite party in the name of complainant dated 04.01.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;
Copy of Registration Book was marked as Ex.A4;
Legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 12.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A5;
Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A6;
The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that the complainant had booked a New Honda Shine SP Motor Cycle with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.58,000/- on 30.03.2017 which was delivered by the opposite party on 25.05.2017 with registration No.TN 03U 9510. On verification of the Registration Book the complainant was shocked to found that it was registered in the name of the opposite party and thereafter the name was transferred in the complainant’s name on 09.01.2018. Thus deceived by the act of the opposite party, when the complainant approached them no proper explanation was given by the opposite party. Thus it was argued that when he had paid the full amount on 13.03.2017, the vehicle was registered in the name of opposite party on 25.05.2017 and was sold as second hand to complainant. Further the name transfer in the complainant’s name was made on 08.01.2018 after 10 months from the date of payment which is a clear unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It is stated by complainant that the opposite party did not inform as alleged in the defence that the vehicle was only a second hand vehicle to be delivered to him. Thus he sought for the refund of the amount paid by him towards purchase of vehicle along with compensation.
On the other hand the main contention/ defence of the opposite party is that the complainant was informed even at the time of booking that the vehicle would be registered in their name and then the name transfer would be made in the purchaser’s name for which the complainant had agreed. They also contended that only for that purpose the vehicle was given for a discounted rate of Rs.58,000/- instead of Rs.71,044/-. Thus it is contended by them that the complainant opted for the purchase of the vehicle in an offer given by the opposite party and got benefited for more than of Rs.13,000/- by the purchase of the vehicle. Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On perusal of the complaint and the version and on hearing the arguments we could find that no material was produced by the opposite party to prove their defence that they provided an offer to the complainant at a discounted price for the sale of second hand vehicle. If at all any offer was made by them they could have produced any pamphlet or any other material evidence to prove their contention. But no evidence was produced by them. The original price of vehicle as alleged by defendant that it is 71,044/- was also not proved. On the other hand no prudent man would book a second vehicle for the price of Rs.58,000/- when he intends to purchase only a new vehicle. Further it is not made clear by the opposite party that why the vehicle was first registered in their name and then the name was transferred in the complainant’s name. In the absence of any evidence produced by the opposite party with respect to their defence this commission had no other option but to accept the allegations of the complainant that the opposite party had cheated him by supplying a second hand vehicle though he had booked and paid for a new vehicle. It is also seen that vehicle owner’s name had got transferred after 10 months of booking. In such facts and circumstances we hold that the act of the opposite party amounted to clear unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in receiving booking for a new vehicle and delivering a second hand vehicle to the complainant. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.
Point No.2:
When we come to the relief part to be granted to the complainant it is clearly proved that the complainant was cheated with a second hand vehicle in the place of new vehicle. Thus it would be an appropriate relief to replace the second vehicle with a new one within six week from the date of receipt of copy of this order or if they are unable to replace to refund the cost of the vehicle. We also award Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant by the act of the opposite party. Cost of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing them
a) to replace a New Honda Shine SP Motor cycle or in alternative to refund a sum of Rs.58,500/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand five hundred only), the value of the vehicle on complainant returning the vehicle within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 15th day of November 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 30.03.2017 Receipt for Rs.58,000/- Xerox
Ex.A2 25.05.2017 Delivery Note. Xerox
Ex.A3 04.01.2018 Receipt for Rs.500/- Xerox
Ex.A4 .............. Registration Book. Xerox
Ex.A5 12.04.2018 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the oppostie party. Xerox
Ex.A6 ............. Acknowledgment card. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party:-
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
