BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 10/03/2011

Date of Order : 31/05/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 141/2011

Between

 

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The undisputed facts of the complainant’s case are as follows :

The complainant purchased a used car from one Mr. C.M. Anzar, bearing Registration No. KL-40 B 9100 on 01-07-2009. The vehicle has been purchased with the financial assistance of Sundaram Finance. On 13-12-2010 the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the authorised person of the opposite party for the periodical service of the vehicle and to rectify the dents in the front bumper of the vehicle. On 18-12-2010 at about 8.30 p.m., the vehicle was redelivered to the complainant. On 19-12-2010 morning the complainant found that the front right side of the vehicle had been painted. At the instance of the complainant, the opposite party took the vehicle for its repairs. In the meantime, the opposite party provided a stand by car to the complainant. Thereafter, after 3 days, the complainant’s vehicle was handed over to him and the stand by vehicle was taken back by the opposite party. Again at the request of the complainant, the technician and painter of the opposite party came to the house of the complainant and rectified the defects of the vehicle. Later, the complainant approached the insurance company and obtained the insurance claim application form in which it is stated that the vehicle had met with an accident and the signature of the registered owner was forged in the application. The opposite party suppressed the real facts from the complainant. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- together with Rs. 10,000/- by way of costs of the proceedings.

2. At the outset, the opposite party appeared through counsel, they opted not to contest for their own reasons from the context of the case thereafter. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on his side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.

3. The only point that came up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite party?

4. Ext. A1 goes to show that the complainant purchased the vehicle from one Mr. C.M. Anzar. According to the complainant, he entrusted the vehicle with the opposite party for its repairs on 13-12-2010. Ext. A5 insurance claim form goes to show that on 13-12-2010 an insurance claim was lodged by the registered owner of the vehicle claiming that the vehicle met with an accident on 11-12-2010 at 3.30 p.m. at Perumbavoor. Ext. A7 is the survey report submitted by the surveyor appointed by the insurance company. The complainant vehemently contended that the opposite party had purposefully suppressed the accident of the vehicle from him and had taken up the insurance claim and advantages of the same and then rectified the defects of the vehicle and delivered the same to the complainant. On account of the accident of the vehicle of which the complainant was kept in the dark whereafter, the opposite party took advantage of the same without the knowledge of the complainant which would tantamount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as far as to which the opposite party is answerable. The conspicuous absence of the opposite party speaks itself for consequences. We fix the compensation at Rs. 10,000/-. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till realisation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of May 2011.