BEFORE THE  A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No. 88 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.80 OF 2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAHMUNDRY

Between

1. M/s Orange Auto Pvt Ltd.,
   rep. by its Managing Director
   Yalamanchali Ramakoteswara Rao
   D.No.4-46-12, GK Mansion
   Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam
2. Yalamanchali Rama Koteswara Rao, 
   Managing Director, M/s. Orange Auto Pvt. Ltd.,
3. . 4-46-12, GK Mansion,

Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

1. Yalamanchali Rama Koteswara Rao, 
   Managing Director, M/s. Orange Auto Pvt. Ltd
2.  Towers, Road No.1,
3.  Hills, Hyderabad.
4.  

        A N D

1.  Padala Konda Reddy, S/o.Bhaskara Reddy,

Hindu, age 43 years, Business, R/


                                        Respondent/complainant                                      

     2. Kakarlapudi Chandrasekhara Varma, S/o.Suryanarayanaraju,

         D.No.4-46-12, GK Mansion, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

    3.   Mr. Lankalapalli Subrahmanya Manoj, S/o.L.S. Naidu,

         R/o.D.No.9-9-47/56, Balaramnagar, Sivajipalem,

 Visakhapatnam.         

                                        Respondents/opposite parties        No.4&5

Counsel for the Appellants             M/s  Indus Law Firm

Counsel for the Respondents                 M/s M.Hari Babu(R1)
                                                Held Sufficient(R2&3)
 

F.A.No. 78 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.80 OF 2010

Between
Padala Konda Reddy, S/o.Bhaskara Reddy,

Hindu, age 43 years, Business, R/o.Ravulapalem.
                                       

                                        Appellant/complainant

        A N D

1. M/s Orange Auto Pvt Ltd.,
   rep. by its Managing Director
   Yalamanchali Ramakoteswara Rao
   D.No.4-46-12, GK Mansion
   Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam
2. Yalamanchali Rama Koteswara Rao, Managing Director,

M/s. Orange Auto  Ltd., . 4-46-12, GK Mansion,

Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

1. Yalamanchali Rama Koteswara Rao, Managing Director,

M/s. Orange Auto  Ltd.,  Towers, Road No.1,

•  Hills, Hyderabad.

    4. Kakarlapudi Chandrasekhara Varma, S/o.Suryanarayanaraju,

         D.No.4-46-12, GK Mansion, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

    5.  Mr. Lankalapalli Subrahmanya Manoj, S/o.L.S. Naidu,

         R/o.D.No.9-9-47/56, Balaramnagar, Sivajipalem,
         Visakhapatnam                                 

        
                                        Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant              M/s  M.Hari Babu

Counsel for the Respondents                 M/s  Indus Law Firm(R1toR3)
                                                M/s Served(R4)
                                                M/s Held Sufficient(R5)

 

  QUORUM:        SRI   THOTA ASHOK KUMAR HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                &

                        SRI, S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                        FRIDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

            Oral Order (As per Sri Thota Ashok Kumar, Hon’ble Member)
                                                   ***

  
1.             Both appeals are directed against the same order passed by the District Forum .  The opposite parties no.1 to 3   have filed appeal , F.A.No. 88 of 2013 and the complainant has filed appeal, F.A.No. 78 of 2014 . For the sake of convenience and felicity of expression, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the complaint.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that  on 22.1.2010 the complainant booked Chevorelet Cruze Model car by paying 2,50,000/- to the opposite parties no.2 to 5.       Further, the opposite parties collected another sum of 1,91,000/-, 25,000/- towards registration charges out of which 15,000/- in the form of DD in favour of RTA, Amalapuram and 10,000/- in cash.  Thus, the opposite parties in all collected 4,66,000/- from the complainant by 4.2.2010.  The opposite parties assured to deliver the vehicle.  The complainant secured loan of 7,75,230/- from HDFC Bank and the same was remitted to the account of the 1^st opposite party on 30.1.2010 and in all the 1^st opposite party collected an amount of 12,41,000/-.  The opposite parties failed to deliver the vehicle inspite of repeated requests, but informed that   the entire money collected from the complainant did not reach the 1^st opposite party.  On that, the complainant lodged a complaint withRavulapalem P.S. on 28.4.2010 against the opposite parties 2 to 5 and the police registered Cr.No.89/10.  The opposite parties sent a letter dated 7.5.2010 with false and fraudulent statement.  The complainant thereupon got issued a legal notice dated 1.6.2010 to the opposite parties but they   did not give any reply.     Hence, the complaint seeking direction to deliver a new Chevorelet Cruze Model car or alternative to pay 12,41,000/- together with interest and costs. 

 3.            The opposite parties no.1 to 3 resisted the case contending  that  the complainant without   heading to the warnings and specific directions given by the 1^st opposite party not to make any payments to the Sales Executive by cash made such payments to 4^th opposite party and is now trying to make good the loss by slinging mud on the opposite parties 1 to 3.   The complainant filed a false complaint with Ravulapalem Police Station against the opposite parties 1 to 3.  The contents of the letter dated 7.5.2010 represents true and correct facts.  When the 2^nd opposite party approached the Hon’ble High Court for anticipatory bail, theHon’ble High Court directed the 2^nd opposite party to clear the HDFC Loan to the tune of 7.75 lakhs and deposit the amount of 2.25 lakhs before the J.F.C. Magistrate, Kothapeta as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail and accordingly the opposite party no.2 deposited the said amount.       In fact when the 2^ndopposite  party  came to know about the fraud committed by the 4^th opposite party, he is the one who lodged the complaint and got the 4^th opposite party arrested and it came to light that the 4^th opposite party has  cheated several customers not only while working under the 1^st opposite party organization, but also while under the employment of several other car dealers.  Therefore, the complainant is at fault for making payments if any to the 4^th opposite party and therefore, the payments if any made to the 4^th opposite party will not bind the opposite parties 1 to 3 as 4^th opposite party was not authorized to receive any payments and the complainant knowing full well about the same made payments and he cannot make opposite parties no.1 to 3 liable.   Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

4.             The complainant has filed his affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A7.  On behalf of the opposite parties no.1 to 3, the General Manager filed his affidavit and marked Exs.B1 to B6.

5.            Having heard both side and considering the material on record the District Forum vide impugned order  allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay 12,41,000/- after deducting the loan of 7,75,230/-  with interest @ 9% per annum together with costs of 2,000/-. 

6.             Aggrieved by the orders of the Distinct Forum, the opposite parties no.1 to 3 have filed F.A.No.88 of 2013 contending that there is no proof that the complainant   given the amounts to the opposite party no.3 on 22.01.2010 and in the absence of the cash receipt the District Forum erred in concluding against the opposite parties no.1 to 3.  The complainant also preferred the appeal F.A.No.78 of 2014 contending that the District Forum failed to award the amount towards mental agony and tension and that it ought to have awarded interest @ 24% instead of 9% interest. 

7.             Heard both side counsel with reference to their respective contentions in detail.

 8.            The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?

9.             The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties 2 to 5   requested the complainant to purchase a new Chervolet Cruise  model car and the complainant accordingly the complainant paid  Rs.2,50,000/- on 22.1.2010 and a retail sale order booking form was issued and that further he  paid the amounts of   1,91,000/-, 25,000/- towards registration charges out of which 15,000/- in the form of DD in favour of RTA, Amalapuram and 10,000/- in cash.  Thus, the opposite parties in all collected 4,66,000/- from the complainant by 4.2.2010.    The complainant secured loan of 7,75,230/- from HDFC Bank and the same was remitted to the account of the 1^st opposite party on 30.1.2010 and thus in all the 1^st opposite party collected an amount of 12,41,000/-. 

10.            The opposite parties 1 to 3 contended  that the 4^th opposite party committed fraud and it is the opposite party no.2  who lodged the complaint and got the 4^th opposite party arrested and it came to light that the 4^th opposite party has cheated several customers not only while working under the 1^st opposite party organization, but also while under the employment of several other car dealers.  Therefore, the complainant is at fault for making payments if any to the 4^thopposite party and therefore, the payments if any made to the 4^th opposite party will not bind the opposite parties 1 to 3.  It is also contended by them that to the complaint lodged by the complainant with Ravulapalem PS the 2^nd opposite party approached the Hon’ble High Court for anticipatory bail, the Hon’ble High Court directed the 2^nd opposite party to clear the HDFC Loan to the tune of Rs.7.75 lakhs and deposit the amount of 2.25 lakhs before the J.F.C. Magistrate, Kothapetaas a condition for grant of anticipatory bail.  

11.            There is no dispute that the opposite parties no.1 to 3 are dealing with sale of new cars and that they received 7,75,230/- from HDFC Bank, which amount was sanctioned as loan to the complainant for purchasing a new car.   With regard to other payments alleged to have been made by the complainant, the opposite parties no.1 to 3 denied and contended that fourth opposite party who is the then employee working under first opposite party cheated him and therefore they are not liable to answer the claim of the complainant with regard to the amounts said to have collected by the opposite party no.4.  Admittedly the opposite parties did not deliver the said car in question.   Nowhere the contesting opposite parties disputed the relationship of the fourth opposite party with first opposite party as their servant.  On the other hand admitted the said relationship categorically.  It is also not in dispute that in connection with the anticipatory bail orders granted in favour of the second opposite party by the HOn’ble High Court of A.P. an amount of Rs.7,75,230/- was deposited by the second opposite party and cleared the HDFC loan sanctioned in favour of the complainant.  Had really the fourth opposite party did not deposit any amounts said to have been collected by him from the complainant with the opposite parties no.1 to 3 certainly they would not have accepted the said amount of 7,75,230/- and returned the same to the bank on the ground that the said other amounts were not deposited by the fourth opposite party but it was not so happened in this case. Admittedly the second opposite party deposited 2,25,000/- before JFCM Kothapeta, East Godavari District as directed in the said anticipatory bail.   There is no dependable evidence from the side of opposite parties no.1 to 3 that fourth opposite party was not authorised to receive any payments and that it was in the knowledge of the complainant. It is settled law that master is vicariously liable for the acts of his employee during the course of employment.  Relying upon decisions in AIR 1978 Supreme Court page 1263 between State Bank of India Vs Smt Shyama Devi the District Forum rightly held that opposite parties no.1 to 3 are liable to answer the claim of the complainant.  According to the complainant in total he paid 12,41,000/- to the first opposite party in which the opposite parties no.2 and 3 are the Managing Directors which includes the said loan amount of 7,75,230/- and when car was not delivered to him certainly he justified in seeking refund of the amount.  Since the contesting opposite parties cleared the loan amount of 7,75,230/- and deposited 2,25,000/- before the said Magistrate certainly the complainant is entitled for the balance amount of 2,40,770/- and therefore we cannot find any fault with the orders of the District Forum in the said context.  In the circumstances the case the forum also awarded the interest @ 9% on the said balance amount from the date of complaint till realisation so also costs of 2,000/- giving two months’ time for compliance further observing that the complainant is entitled to claim 2,25,000/- deposited by the opposite parties in the said Magistrate’s court.  The complainant filed F.A.No.78 of 2014 and also a calculation memo stating that the complainant paid 49,410/- in three instalments @ 16,470/- in the bank and in such circumstances we are satisfied to hold that he is entitled for the refund of 49,410/- so deposited by him in the bank into the loan amount together with interest @ 9% per annum from the opposite parties.    He did not make out any case towards other charges so also 12% interest per annum and compensation as prayed for.    In view of the above discussion the order of the District Forum is modified. 

12.            In the result the appeal F.A.No.88 of 2013 filed by the  opposite parties no.1 to 3 is dismissed without costs and appeal F.A.No.78 of 2014 filed by the complainant is partly allowed  directing the opposite parties to pay 49,410/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint  till realization apart from the amounts ordered to be paid by the opposite parties in the impugned order.  The parties shall bear their own costs in the appeals.  Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                            Dt.25.07.2014

కె.ఎం.కె.*