BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 186/2011
Head Car Product Group, Tata Motors Ltd., Passenger Car Business Unit, 5th Floor, One Forbes, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Mumbai 400 001. (By M/s Thakur & Sinha) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
Manjunath Timmapa Naik, Aged about 50 years, Occ : Government Servant, R/o “Nagashree Nilay”, Handigon, Taluk – Kumta, Dist : Uttar Kannada, Karnataka. (By Sri Vishnu.D.Bhat) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.15.12.2010 passed in CC.No.62/2010 on the file of Uttara Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karwar.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he booked one Nano Car with the Opposite Party availing loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from State Bank of India, Kumta Branch. After taking booking, the Opposite Party had allotted car vide letter dt.23.06.2009 and assured to deliver the vehicle in the month of December 2009, but, the Opposite Party failed to deliver the said vehicle on the assured period of time for which the complainant sought for cancellation of the allotment and requested the Opposite Party to refund the amount paid towards the purchase of the vehicle. The Opposite Party failed to refund the said amount, hence, alleged deficiency in service and filed a complaint before the District Commission.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through his counsel and filed version contending that they were unable to deliver the vehicle well within the assured time and after that the cancellation was made by the complainant and after the cancellation, the Opposite Party refunded the booking amount of Rs.1,28,000/- to the financier State Bank of India on 22.09.2009 through RTGS and they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant, hence, submits no deficiency in service and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.1,28,081/- with interest at 9% from 03.06.2010, till realization along with compensation and costs.
5. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ Opposite Party is in appeal. Heard the arguments of appellant.
6. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the Order and documents produced before the District Commission, we noticed that the complainant had booked one Nano Car in the year 2009 with financial assistance from State Bank of India. Accordingly, the vehicle was booked in the name of the complainant and the State Bank of India has sanctioned the loan in favour of the complainant and paid the amount of Rs.1,28,000/- to the Opposite Party under the agreement between the complainant and the SBI. Thereafter, it is an admitted fact that the complainant sought for cancellation of the allotment due to delay in delivery. Accordingly, the cancellation was made and the amount was paid by the Opposite Party company to financier through RTGS, but, the complainant raised a dispute that he had not received any amount, hence, filed the complaint.
7. On going through the certified copy of the Order, the District Commission had failed to notice the amount paid by the Opposite Party through RTGS. When the amount was paid through electronic media, that does not require any further authentication. We observed that the complainant had not brought the State Bank of India before the District Commission to establish that whether the bank has received the amount of Rs.1,28,000/- from the Opposite Party after cancellation. In the absence of such materials, the District Commission ought to dismiss the complaint whereas without considering the payment, the District Commission allowed the complaint which in our opinion lacks legality. We found that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
