KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.623/2016

JUDGEMENT DATED : 13.12.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.218/2014on the file of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

APPELLANTS:

(by Adv. S.M. Rajeevan and Adv. M.M. Baby)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh and Adv. Sheeba Sivadasan)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 3 in C.C.No.218/2014 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (for short ‘the District Commission’).  The 1^st respondent herein is the complainant before the District Commission. 

          2.       The complainant is an autorikshaw driver.  On 04.07.2013, he purchased an autorikshaw availing a vehicle loan from the 1^st opposite party.  However, the complainant was bed ridden due to back pain and hence he was not in a position to ply the autorikshaw.  Therefore, he was not in a position to repay the monthly instalments.  So the monthly instalments became due.  He informed the matter to the 1^st opposite party immediately.

3.       On 30.12.2013, an agent of the 1^st opposite party approached the complainant.  The agent of the 1^st opposite party had taken the autorikshaw from the complainant stating that the autorikshaw would be kept in the custody of the 3^rd opposite party for four months, within which the complainant could pay the amount.  Thereafter, the vehicle was sold by the opposite parties within four months without giving notice to the complainant.  The complainant also entrusted blank cheque leafs with the 1^st opposite party at the time of availing the vehicle loan.  

4.       The complainant paid a total amount of Rs.22,500/-(Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred only) on 04.07.2013.  Thereafter, he paid the first instalment of Rs.4,300/-(Rupees Four Thousand Three Hundred only).  Then he paid another instalment of Rs.4,610/-(Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred and Ten only).  He had spent an amount of Rs.2,050/-(Rupees Two Thousand Fifty only) for purchasing the meter and Rs.550/-(Rupees Five Hundred and Fifty only) for stamping and other charges.  Thus, the complainant had spent a total amount of Rs.34,010/-(Rupees Thirty Four Thousand and Ten only) on the vehicle.

5.       Though notice was sent to the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party remained absent.  The 2^nd opposite party appeared before the District Commission.  But the 2^nd opposite party did not file any version.  The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A14 were marked for the complainant.

6.       After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.34,010/-(Rupees Thirty Four Thousand and Ten only) to the complainant towards the amount spent by the complainant.  The District Commission further directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.

7.       Heard both sides.  Perused the records.

8.       It is not disputed that the appellant had availed a loan from the 1^st opposite party for purchasing an autorikshaw for being used as a taxi service.  However, since the appellant had back pain, he was bed ridden and hence he could not ply the taxi service.  So there was default in payment of monthly instalments.  The complainant informed the 1^st opposite party about the same.  The 1^st opposite party had taken the autorikshaw.  Thereafter, Exhibit A5 was executed between the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party wherein it was stated that the autorikshaw would be kept in the custody of the 3^rd opposite party for a period of four months, within which the complainant could pay the amount.  However, before the expiry of the said period of four months, the autorikshaw was sold by the 3^rd opposite party and that itself, without issuing notice to the complainant.

9.       It is borne out from Exhibit A10 that the autorikshaw was sold on a date prior to 11.04.2014.  Exhibit A10 is the notice issued to the complainant from the Sub Regional Transport Officer, Pala.  It is seen from Exhibit A10 that the said notice was issued in connection with the issuance of fresh registration certificate to vehicle bearing No. KL 35 E 5116, which is the autorikshaw involved in this case.  It is borne out from Exhibit A10 that the said notice was issued on the basis of an application submitted before the Sub Regional Transport Officer on 11.04.2014.  This would show that the sale of the autorikshaw was effected prior to 11.04.2014.  Exhibit A5 agreement was executed on 30.12.2013.  Therefore, there can be no doubt that the vehicle was sold before the expiry of four months mentioned in Exhibit A5 agreement.

10.  The complainant contended that the notice was not issued to the complainant before selling the autorikshaw.  The proof affidavit filed by the complainant reiterates the contentions in the complaint.  There is no material before the Commission inconsistent with the evidence of the complainant that the autorikshaw was sold within four months against the terms stipulated in Exhibit A5.  There is also no material inconsistent with the evidence of the complainant that the autorikshaw was sold without issuing notice to the complainant

11.     The amount for which the autorikshaw was sold was also not informed to the complainant.  Since the autorikshaw was sold without the consent of the complainant, there was unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The sale of autorikshaw against the terms in Exhibit A5 and without issuing notice to the complainant, would amount to unfair trade practice.  Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are satisfied that there was unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  In the said circumstances, we do not find any reason to deviate from the finding in this regard by the District Commission.

12.     The District Commission directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.34,010/-(Rupees Thirty Four Thousand and Ten only), which was only the amount spent by the complainant and hence the said amount is only a reasonable amount.  However, the compensation and the costs awarded by the District Commission appear to be disproportionate.  Considering the facts and circumstances, including the amount involved in this case, we are of the view that the compensation ordered by the District Commission can be modified and reduced to Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) and the costs can be modified and reduced to Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only), to secure the ends of justice.

In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part, the compensation and the costs ordered by the District Commission stand modified and reduced to Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) and Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) respectively. The order of the District Commission stands confirmed in every respect except to the extent of modification of the compensation and costs as above. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgement.

The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be given to the 1^st respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement.       

SL