SMT. RAVI SUSHA : PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking an order directing the Op to refund Rs.30,000/- which was given as advance amount to OP for purchasing a motor bike.
The brief facts of complainants case is that the OP is the agent of Harley Davidson Motor bike. The complainant had paid Rs.30,000/- to OP as advance for purchasing a bike OP had given invoice dt.3/10/2016 for the advance payment date. Complainant demanded blue colour bike. But the OP failed to deliver blue colour vehicle , instead the sales executive of OP informed that instead of blue colour, they can deliver only black colour vehicle. Since complainant was not agreed for that, OP was ready to refund only rs.15,000/-out of Rs.30,000/-. So the complainant filed this complaint.
After receiving notice from the commission, OP entered appearance and filed version admitted the remittance of Rs.30,000/- to their institution by the complainant as per quotation and given invoice dtd.3/10/2016. OP denied all other allegations of the complainant in this complaint. According to OP, they never agreed to deliver the vehicle within 20 days after the invoice date. OP contended that the vehicle was available at the show room on the agreed date, but complainant was not ready to take up the vehicle. Instead he demanded the refund of the advance amount. According to OP there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their side and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
At the evidence stage complainant filed chief affidavit and 3 documents. He was examined as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is quotation of OP dtd.3/10/2016. Ext.A2 is vehicle booking form(marked subject to proof). Ext.A3 is the bank receipt towards the payment for the bike. PW1 was made cross examined for the OP.
The sales manager of OP filed his chief affidavit before the commission on 19/9/2018. But till 6/2/2021 the representative of OP who filed chief affidavit was not present for adducing evidence. On 16/2/2021 the counsel of OP again prayed time for the appearance of OP. The commission allowed the prayer on payment of cost Rs.500/- to complainant and adjourned to 9/3/2021 with a direction to be present on that day for giving evidence. But on 9/3/2021 OP was absent. Moreover there was no representation from OP’s side and not paid the cost as ordered. Hence the evidence was closed.
Both sides did not file argument note. We have perused the records brought before us.
OP simply filed version and chief affidavit. Filing of version and chief affidavit is not sufficient for proving their contentions. On cross examination of PW1 by OP did not reveal anything in favour of their contentions. Hence we are constrained to believe the complainant’s case. Though complaint, chief affidavit and Exts.A1 to A3, complainant proved his case. So we are of the view that the action of OP amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence complainant is entitled to get relief.
In the result, complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.30,000/- to the complainant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the amount of Rs.30000/- carries interest @12% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization. The complainant is at liberty to file execution proceeding for the realization of the award amount, as per provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1-quatation
A2-Booking form(subject to proof)
A3-Receipt
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew. Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
