IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 29th day of February, 2016
Filed on 1.8.2014
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.194/2014
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Mathew Eapen Geeyam Motors (P) Ltd.
Puthenpurackal 11/336, NH – 47 Byepass
Oppo. Holy Angel’s School Nettoor P.O., Cochin – 682 040
Edathua – 689 573 (By Adv. Shafik. M. AbdulKhader)
(By Adv. Vinod Varghese)
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in succinct is as follows:-
The complainant is the registered owner of the car bearing No.KL-01-AC-4600. He has been suffering from multiple ailments. He on 17th December, 2012 exchanged the said car to the opposite party and purchased a brand new car from the opposite party. The new car was purchased in the name of the complainant’s daughter. For the last several years, the complainant has been suffering from age-related multiple ailments, and the vehicles were mainly used for the conveyance as to his treatments. When the old car was so exchanged to the opposite party, the opposite party assured the complainant that the name of ownership would be changed within seven days obtained signature of the complainant on necessary ‘Forms’ to change the name of ownership of the old car. Strangely yet, the opposite party has not taken any steps to effect ‘change of ownership’ of the car till this time. The complainant was opportune to realize the same when the complainant received charge memo from the police department. The complainant had entrusted all the original documents of the old vehicle with the opposite party at the time of the purchase of the new car. The complainant has been suffering from immeasurable mental agony and other difficulties resultantly due to the negligence and omission on the part of the opposite party. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice being sent the opposite party appeared and filed version. The crux of the contentions of the opposite party is that the complainant is not a consumer, and the complaint is bad by non-joinder of parties. According to the opposite party, the complainant had not exchanged the vehicle to the opposite party. The complainant had never entrusted the documents of the old vehicle to the complainant. The opposite party has not given any assurance as to the change of ownership to the complainant. The opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party vehemently contends.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The opposite party was examined as RW1 and the document Ext.B1 was marked.
4. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties the issues that crop up before us for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?
5. The complainants’ case is that the complainant exchanged the old vehicle to the opposite party and bought a new one in the name of his daughter. The opposite party at the time of the said transaction has assured the complainant that steps would be taken to effect change of ownership of the vehicle forthwith and the same would be effected within 7 days. However to the shock of the complainant a charge memo was issued to the complainant by the police and the complainant realized that the opposite party omitted to do anything to get the ownership of the vehicle changed. According to the opposite party, the opposite party has never made it a point to exchange vehicles. The representative of the opposite party with whom the complainant is claimed to have dealt with is not a member of the staffs of the opposite party. The complainant ought to have made the said representative to the complainant. Similarly the new vehicle has been purchased not in the name of the complainant but someone else. Hat apart the opposite party never assured the complainant at the change of ownership of the vehicle nor has obtained any documents regarding the complainant’s old vehicle. Keeping in mind all these contentions we watchfully examined the material brought on record before us by the parties. On a plain perusal of the contentions of the opposite party as to the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party as the vehicle has been purchased in the name of his daughter-in-law, and she and the representative of the opposite party ought to have been impleaded all apparently seemed to be mere technical without any merit. In the complaint it is specifically stated that the vehicle has been purchased for the complainant’s purpose, and what is more the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle alleged to have been exchanged to the opposite party. To prove the complainant’s case, the complainant was examined as PW1, and the documents Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. A perusal of Ext.A1 would go to show that the opposite party’s representative and the Sales Manager has affixed signature unfolds that there was a kind of exchange between the opposite party and the complainant. That apart when opposite party was examined in the box, the opposite party often gave elusive answers. On the other hand the complainant emphatically asserted in the box that the complainant has exchanged vehicle to the opposite party, and the opposite party had given assurances as to change of ownership of the vehicle on the complainant being impressed upon that the opposite party was keeping a special wing for the same. It is also not uncommon that the dealers like opposite party for promoting sale of their vehicle used to exchange vehicle in the manner as alleged by the complainant. Thus viewing from any perspective it is to be presumed that the complainant’s case merits acceptance. It goes without saying that the complainant is entitled to relief.
For the foregoing facts and findings herein above, the opposite party is directed to immediately change the name of ownership of the complainant’s material vehicle exchanged to the opposite party. The opposite party is further directed to give a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant for the mental agony the opposite party inflicted on him. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) as costs to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2016.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Mathew Eapen (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Sales order booking form
Ext.A2 - Copy of the application dated 24.7.2014
Ext.A3 - Charge memo dated 7.4.2014
Ext.A4 - Visiting cards (2 Nos.)
Ext.A5 - Attested copy of the Finance scheme (Subject to objection)
Ext.A6 - Attested copy of the bank account statement (Subject to objection)
Ext.A7 - Attested copy of the RC book (Subject to objection)
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Rajesh.P. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the invoice dated 29.12.2012
// True Copy //
.By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
