Kerala

Idukki

CC/182/2018

Anish P K - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pandayan - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K B Selvam

26 Jul 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :08/10/2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26^th day of July 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 182/2018

Between

Complainant : Aneesh P.K.,

Pulickal Karottu,

Karikkinmedu Kara,

Prakash P.O., Thankamany Village,

Idukki Taluk.

(By Adv: K.B.Selvam)

And

Opposite Party : Pandyan, S/o M.R.Palani Swamy,

Cheruvil House,

Estate Pooppara Kara,

Pooppara Village, Udumbanchola Taluk.

 

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P.(MEMBER)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant was purchased Alpha Autorickshaw for goods carrying purpose and it was financed by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Company. Complainant sold the vehicle to opposite party worth Rs.2,03,020 and received an advance amount of Rs.35,000/- balance Rs.1,68,720/- has to be given to the finance company as a monthly equal instalment. At the time of preparing sale deed, there was a condition that monthly instalment to be correctly done, otherwise all cause and consequences will be fallen upon the responsibility of opposite party, as per that it is not done by the opposite party. Hence finance company sent several reminder to the complainant for correcting the defaulted instalments. On the same time, opposite party handed over the vehicle to one Mr.Raja in the same village. As and when complainant enquired these things, opposite party threatened the complainant and also he put all liability on the

(Cont....2)

 

-2-

 

shoulder of the complainant. The complainant is a poor coolie labour, this caused him huge mental agony and he could not further contact with finance company for purchasing another vehicle. The actions of opposite party is unfair trade practice and he had played fraud on the complainant. So opposite party is liable to settle the dues of the vehicle to the finance company and also to change the name of RC owner.

 

Notice served to the opposite party. But he did not appear before the Forum. So opposite party called absent and set exparte.

 

Complainant adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit. He is examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 is marked, the sale agreement of the vehicle between the complainant and opposite party.

 

Heard,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have perused the evidence on records. It is an admitted fact that the complainant sold the vehicle to opposite party for a condition of sale agreement between them. The complainant produced the sale agreement and was marked as Ext.P1. Notice served to opposite party. But opposite party did not appear before the Forum. Hence opposite party set exparte.

 

Hence the petition allowed. Opposite party is directed to settle the dues to the financial company or pay Rs.1,68,720/- to the complainant and change the name of RC owner and also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to complainant, within 30 days from the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which

 

 

(Cont....3)

-3-

 

the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of July, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Aneesh P.K.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The sale agreement of the vehicle between the complainant and

opposite party.

 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT