BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 164/2003 Filed on 23.04.2003<br /> Dated : 29.08.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> <br /> M. Abdul Latheef, T.C 2/1420-4, Vrindavan Buildings, Pattom Palace P.O, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> (By adv. Paraniyam R.T. Devakumar)<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.The Sales Manager, Sales Department(Peugeot 309), Pal-Peugeot Ltd., Kalyan Shill Road, Manpade, Dombivali 421 204, Dist. Thana, State of Maharashtra.<br /> <br /> Additional opposite party:<br /> <br /> 2.The Manager, T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Neeramankara, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 040.<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 18.07.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 11.07.2008, the Forum on 29.08.2008 delivered the following: <br /> ORDER <br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER<br /> The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant booked a Pal-Peugeot 309 car with the 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs. 25000/- vide D.D.No. 432874 dated 31.10.1995 towards advance for priority registration. The application form No 43284 for priority registration with the D.D was accepted by the opposite party and priority No. 2563 was allotted to the complainant since there was delay in the delivery of the vehicle. The complainant was forced to cancel the priority registration on 27.02.1996 and on 24.06.1996 he sent a reminder letter and then as required by the opposite party he sent the indemnity bond for the issue of a duplicate receipt-cum-priority since the original sent to the opposite party was misplaced from his office. But the opposite party neither send the duplicate receipt cum priority card nor refunded the said amount to the complainant till date. The opposite party had agreed to refund the booking charges with interest compounded annually for the said amount from the last date of booking in case of cancellation. But the attempts made by the complainant to collect the advance amount from the opposite parties failed. Lastly on 28.03.2003 the complainant had sent a lawyer's notice to the opposite parties, but the same returned unserved. Thereafter also the opposite party failed to refund the advance with interest to the complainant. The act of the opposite party is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by which the complainant suffered monitory loss, mental agony, difficulties and hardships. Hence he filed this complaint before this Forum. <br /> The 1st opposite party Sales Manager, Pal Peugeot Ltd. Is exparte. The 2nd opposite party, the Manager, T.V.S. Iyengar and Sons Ltd. Filed their version. As per the 2nd opposite party he is only an authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party and is in no manner connected with the reimbursement of the advance amount. The 2nd opposite party stated that as per the terms and conditions of the opposite parties the 1st opposite party is liable to refund the advance booking amount. Hence they prayed for exonerating them from the liability. <br /> Points to be ascertained:<br /> (i)Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount?<br /> (ii)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant has been filed affidavit and examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5 are marked. The 1st opposite party remained exparte and 2nd opposite party did not cross-examine the complainant. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. The document produced as Ext. P1 is the photocopy of application form for priority registration of Peugeot 309 car. Ext. P2 is the copy of letter for cancellation dated 27.02.1996. Ext. P3 is the acknowledgement card signed by the 1st opposite party. Ext. P4 is the copy of lawyer's notice dated 28.03.2003. Ext. P5 is the postal receipt dated 28.03.2003.<br /> Ext. P1 proves the acceptance of Rs. 25000/- from the complainant by the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party in their version admitted the transaction and also they argued that the 1st opposite party is liable to refund the booking amount. The 1st opposite party had sufficient opportunity to contest the case but they did not turn up. In this case the complainant requested for cancellation of registration on 27.02.1996, through registered letter to the 1st opposite party, i.e Ext. P2. The 1st opposite party accepted the letter but not replied. Thereafter the complainant and opposite parties had no transaction for a period of 7 years. After a long period of 7 years the complainant send a lawyer's notice to the 1st opposite party (Ext. P5) demanding the repayment of the advance amount. That notice returned with the endorsement not served. Though the opposite parties have not contested the case properly, it is evident that the 1st opposite party has accepted the advance booking amount of Rs. 25000/- for the Peugeot 309 car from the complainant. And as per the terms and conditions of 1st opposite party produced by the 2nd opposite party, the 1st opposite party has admitted that they will refund the advance booking amount with 9% interest. But they did not refund the advance booking amount paid by the complainant though the requisition letter has been received by them on 27.02.1996. This act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The 2nd opposite party produced a decision of National Commission reported in i(1995) CPJ 33 (NC) wherein it is decided that only the manufacturer is liable to refund the advance booking amount of the car. Hence the 1st opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and sufferings. <br /> In the result the 1st opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 25000/- with 9% annual interest from 27.02.1996 to the date of realization of the amount to the complainant and also shall pay Rs. 1500/- as cost of the case. <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 29th August 2008. <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No.164/2003<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> PW1 - Abdul Latheef<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Photocopy of application form for priority registration of <br /> Peugeot 309 car. <br /> P2 - Copy of letter for cancellation of booking of the car dated 27.02.1996.<br /> P3 - Acknowledgement card signed by the 1st opposite party. <br /> P4 - Copy of lawyer's notice dated 28.03.2003. <br /> P5 - Postal receipt dated 28.03.2003.<br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />