This is a discussion on Thirumala Motor within the Bicycle forums, part of the Two Wheeler category; C.C.No.32/2006 Between:- Bairi Rajaiah, S/o. Rayamallu, Age: 56 years., C/o. Dasari Shankaraiah, H.No.42-62, Maruthi Nagar, Mandamarri. …Complainant. //AND// M/s.Thirumala Motor ...
Bairi Rajaiah, S/o. Rayamallu, Age: 56 years.,
C/o. Dasari Shankaraiah, H.No.42-62,
Maruthi Nagar, Mandamarri. …Complainant.
M/s.Thirumala Motor Credits,
Opp: II Town Police Station,
Call tax, Bellampalli,
Represented by it’s Managing Partner,
Sri Mokshanandam. …Opposite Party.
Counsel for Complainant : Mr.M.Ravinder Reddy.
Counsel for Opposite Party : Set-exparte.
SRI.P.THIRUPATHI REDDY, M.A., L.L.B., : PRESIDENT.
SRI. G.SRINIVAS, B.COM.L.L.B., : MEMBER.
FRIDAY THE 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009.
ORDER PROUNOUNCED BY PRESIDENT :-
1. In this case orders were pronounced on 02.11.2006. Aggrieved by the order, the Opp.Party in the CC preferred appeal before Hon’ble A.P.State Commission Hyderabad vide F.A.No.110/2007. The Hon’ble A.P.State Commission Hyderabad has allowed the appeal on condition that the appellant/Opp.Party pays costs of Rs.1,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant within 15 days from the date of the order. The date of the order is 03.11.2009.
2. This Forum after following due procedure posted the case to bench on 17.11.2009. On 17.11.2009 complainant filed continuation memo. The Opp.Party was called absent, no representation for Opp.Party. The case was posted to 18.11.2009. On that day also Opp.Party was called absent, no representation from Opp.Party. Cost of Rs.1,000/- not paid/deposited. Opp.Party was Set.Ex.Parte. Records received from Hon’ble A.P.State Commission Hyderabad. Case stands posted to 27.11.2009.
The brief averments of complaint are.
1. The complainant is Bairi Rajaiah, S/o. Rayamallu, R/o.Mandamarri. He purchased a Hero Honda Splender Motor Cycle bearing No.AP01K-3349 from the show room of the Opposite Party on credit basis. The Opposite Party introduced a Scheme and asked the complainant to join in the Scheme for purchase of bike. As per the Scheme and terms, the complainant shall pay the vehicle cost with credit charges which comes to Rs.46,368/- at Rs.1288/- per month for 36 months. Accordingly the complainant joined in the said scheme in the month of Novermber-2003, he started paying the installments from the month of November 2003. The complainant submitted that he paid the amounts in lump sum apart from the installments and as such the complainant was given the above-mentioned vehicle by the Opposite Party in the Month of August, 2004 from his show room. The same was registered in favour of the complainant. The complainant submitted that he continued the payment of amounts to the Opposite Party and by the end of January 2005, the complainant paid the total amount of Rs.44,844/- to the Opposite Party and the complainant was issued receipts of the said payments made to the Opposite Party. Thus the complainant paid the amount of Rs.44,844/- within 15 months instead of (36) months to the Opposite Party. As such he is entitled for exemption of interest for the remaining (21) months and the amount of Rs.44,844/- paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party is the excess amount than payable to the Opposite Party. While the matter stood thus, in the month of November, 2005, all of a sudden the workers of the Opposite .Party came to the house of the complainant and demanded him to pay the amount of Rs.17,652/- (Purporting to be the balance amount of Rs.10,044/- penalty of Rs.6026/- transport charges of Rs.750/- and Rs.832/- towards spares totaling to Rs.17,652/-) and they forcibly took away the vehicle of the complainant. Immediately, the complainant approached the Opposite Party and requested him to release the vehicle by showing the receipts issued by the Opposite Party for the amount, but the Opposite Party demanded the complainant to pay the above mentioned amount of Rs.17,652/- for the release of the vehicle. The seizure of the vehicle by the Opposite Party from the custody of the complainant is illegal and it caused mental agony and also hardship to the complainant. The complainant submits that he got issued a legal notice through his counsel on 30.11.2005 demanding him to release the vehicle and to pay the damages of Rs.25,000/- for the wrong done by the Opposite Party for which the Opposite Party got issued reply notice admitting the seizure of the Vehicle, and failed to release the Vehicle. On the other hand, the Opposite Party got mentioned in the reply notice demanding the complainant to pay Rs.12, 542/- without giving the particulars of said amount. The demand of the Opposite Party is exorbitant and illegal. The complainant submits that he is the customer of the Opposite Party, he purchased the Vehicle from him and paid the amount of the Vehicle. The services of the Opposite Party became negligent and defective. The seizure of the vehicle of the complainant and demanding exorbitant and excessive amount is not legal. The Opposite Party caused loss and hardship to the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Opposite Party to release his Vehicle and pay damages of Rs.25.000/-.
2. On 2.11.06 Sri M.Ravinder Reddy Advocate filed Vakalath and Proof Affidavit, on behalf of complainant. Arguments heard in this case. Even though this Forum issued notice to the Opposite Party, he refused to receive the notice. The learned advocate for complainant filed Ex.A1 to A16 documents. Ex. A1 to A14 disclose that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.44, 844/-. Ex.A15 is the Legal Notice, Dt.30.11.2005. Ex.A16 is the Reply Notice, Dt.09.12.2005. The learned advocate for complainant submitted that even though the Opposite Party received (huge amount of Rs.44, 844/-) he has taken the Hero Honda Motor Cycle from the possession of complainant in Nov.2005. According to learned advocate for complainant B.Rajaiah lost valuable amount of Rs. 44,844/- and also his vehicle. As seen from the reply notice issued by K.Rajamouli Advocate Mancherial, the complainant Rajaiah is said to have committed default to a sum of Rs.12.542/-. The notice do not disclose about the nature of default it is a bald statement. The learned advocate for the complainant submitted that above said amount is not default due for installments. According to him the Opposite Party calculated the above amount towards some surcharges etc., but the Opposite Party did not furnish detailed statement for default said to have made by complainant, thus there is no reliable and relevant record to show that complainant committed default in paying installments etc., As the Opposite Party remained ex-parte there is nothing to rebut the allegations made by complainant in the complaint, Hence the allegations of the complainant stands proved. This Forum set Opposite Party ex-parte as per the C.P. Act. 1986.
3. In the result the Complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.44,844/- with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of complaint i.e.22.07.06 and pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and reimburse the Court Fee of Rs.100/- and pay cost of Rs.500/- with in one month from the date of this Order.
Click here to Become Premium Member