Date of Filing: 31/08/2017
Date of Order: 31/12/2018
BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.
Dated: 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
PRESENT
SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT
SRI D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.2433/2017
COMPLAINANT: | | |
| 1 | Sri. D.K.Nanje Gowda, S/o. Late. D.B.Kempegowda, Aged about 50 years, No.302/302, 32nd Main, 17th Cross, 6th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore -560 078. (By Sri. V.R.Nayak., for complainant) |
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTY: | | |
| 1 | M/s. Trident Auto Enterprises (P) Ltd., No.613/A, 15th Cross, 33rd Main, 100 feet, Ring Road, J.P.Nagar, 1st Phase, Bangalore -560 078. Rep by its Manager, (By Sri. K.K.P., Adv for Op) |
ORDER
BY SRI.SURESH.D., MEMBER
1. This is the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as O.P) alleging deficiency in service and to direct the O.P to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- and also awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and tension to the complainant and court cost of Rs.10,000/- and such other relief as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper along with costs and such other expenses.
2. Facts of the complaint in brief are that: Complainant booked a Renault Duster (SUV) with OP and paid Rs. 5000/- by cheque NO. 10008225 drawn on Fedral Bank Ltd., JP Nagar, Bangalore and the same was realized by OP on 30.0.2015. The receipt issued by the OP was lost. The complainant did not wish to go ahead to purchase the vehicle and he informed the same to O.P several times and requested to refund his booking amount of Rs 5,000/-. O.P insisted for production of original receipt. O.P. is having the counter foil of the receipt/ copy of the receipt and it could have verified the same and returned the amount to the complainant by obtaining the letter of indemnity. Whereas Op evaded the refund by insisting for production of original receipt which is genuinely lost. After several reminders, complainant sent a legal notice dated 12.4.2017 through RPAD. The OP acknowledged the receipt of legal notice but have not replied or refunded. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon service of notice, OP filed his version and taken contention that the complainant has suppressed the true facts and with a malafide intention has filed this false complaint before this Hon’ble forum and complaint is based on false and vexatious grounds, thus same is not maintainable. OP admits that he has received Rs. 5000/ as booking amount for Renault Duster. Thereafter complainant came to OP’s show room and requested to cancel the booking. At that juncture, the sales Executive asked for Original cash receipt to refund the said amount. Complainant intimated that he has lost the receipt issued by OP. For which, OP’s executive informed complainant to furnish a self declaration letter, and willingness letter stating that he wants to cancel the booking and also requested to produce self attested document of identity as proof. Complainant refused to issue any such letter nor willing to provide any supporting documents . Complainant was very adamant in furnishing said documents. He failed to comply the company norms. After receiving the notice OP’s sales executives voluntarily contacted the complainant over the telephone and requested to come forward to take back his booking amount but he didl not peruse the matter further. OP voluntarily have sent DD to the address of complainant on 22.5.2018 by RPAD. Since the amount which is in dispute has been dispatched to the complainant the present complaint becomes in-fructuous. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. In order to substantiate their case, the complainant and O.P have filed their affidavit evidence. Heard the arguments of complainant. O.P and counsel have not addressed their arguments. Hence taken as heard.
5. The following points arise for our consideration is:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT 1): In the Negative.
POINT 2): In the Negative.
As per the final order:
REASONS
POINT No.1:-
7. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence placed on record it reveals that the complainant has paid cheque for Rs.5000/ - to OP towards booking of Renault Duster (SUV) as per Ex. P.1 and Legal Notice issued to OP calling upon to refund Rs.5,000/-. OP has acknowledged the receipt of legal notice, the postal acknowledge as per Ex.No.P3. Further, OP insisted the complainant to submit original receipt issued by it for making repayment of said advance amount. If the record is lost, it is necessary to follow the procedure. Op’s executives informed the complainant to give a self declaration letter canceling the booking with proof of identity. The intention of OP behind this is that if someone else gets the lost receipt, it may be misused. To avoid this, there is nothing wrong with the OP insisting the formalities. Further it is the duty of complainant to follow the necessary procedure to get refund of the advance amount when the original document is lost. In the present complaint, no where complainant mentioned that he has complied all the required formalities to fulfil his part of obligation. When he failed to discharge his part of obligation, he cannot seek any relief. Hence complainant has utterly failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of OP.
8. During the proceedings before this forum, OP voluntarily sent a D.D bearing No. 015836 for Rs.5000/- to the address of the complainant on 22.05.2018 through RPAD. Said D.D. was received by Complainant. But for the reasons known to the complainant, the same was not en cashed. In view of this we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.p Hence we answer Point No. 1 and 2 in the Negative.
After perusing the order sheet, it is noticed that the complainant has submitted that though he has received DD for Rs.5000/- from Op, he did not en cash the same and he is entitled for damages. In view of this, he is entitled to get back the same from the Op. In view of our answer to point No.1 and 2, Complainant is not entitled for damages and also for litigation charges. We proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed. However, complainant is entitled for Rs.5,000/-. Op is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant with in 30 day from the date of receipt.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the complaints/ version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 31st Day of December 2018)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
Sri. –D.K.Nanje Gowda- Complainant.
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Doc.No.1: Copy of the Federal bank Statement
Doc.No.2: Copy of the legal notice dated 12.04.2017 with one postal receipt postal acknowledgments card
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1 : Sri. Narasimhan G.N.-Op
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
Doc.No.1: Copy of the DD
Doc.No.2: Copy of the RPAD
MEMBER PRESIDENT
