DATE OF FILING : 27.4.2017

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  28th  day of   September,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

          SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.80/2017

Between

Complainant       :    N. Vidyadharan, S/o. Narayanan,

Nedumangadu House,

Ambalakkara, Kattappana P.O.,

Idukki.

(By Adv: V.C. Sebastian)

And

Opposite Party                                          :    Saidu Muhammed, 

S/o. Kochumuhammed,

Kunnackattu House,

Nadackal, Erattupetta P.O.

(By Adv: P.A. Suhas)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant is that,

        Complainant purchased a 2012 model Swaraj Mazda Mini Tipper bearing Reg. No.KL/57P/3359, from opposite party on 22.3.2016.  At that time, the complainant and the opposite party entered into a sale agreement, whereas opposite party is the first party.  In this agreement, opposite party assured that he will clear all the papers of the vehicle including the payment of vehicle kshemanidhi.  But after the sale of the vehicle, opposite party withdrawn from the agreement condition and not provided the vehicle  kshemanidhi clearance.  Due to that, the complainant was not in a position to ply his vehicle publically and thereby caused a loss of Rs.45000/- and other mental agonies.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed this petition for allowing the reliefs such as to direct the opposite party to pay compensation and cost and also direct the opposite party to clear all the papers of the vehicle.

        Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed reply version denying all the allegations against him.  He further contended that in this deed, (cont....2)

-  2  -

complainant is bound to give Rs.35,000/- to the opposite party,   but he failed to do so.  For evading from paying balance sale consideration, complainant approached the Forum and filed such a petition by suppressing the real facts.  Moreover, complainant has not produced any evidence showing the damages caused to him as alleged.  Opposite party further contended that, if the complainant provide the ID proof and copy of RC book, he is ready to give the kshemanidhi clearance at any time.  Hence no deficiency in service was happened on the part of the opposite party in this matter.

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2(series) marked.  Ext.P1 is the copy of vehicle sale agreement.  Ext.P2 is the copy of legal notice and its postal receipt and acknowledgment.  From  1st opposite party side, no oral or documentary evidence is produced.

Heard in detail.

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

The POINT :-  We have heard the counsel of both the parties and gone through the evidence on record.  Complainant was examined as PW1 at the time of cross examination, the complainant deposed that he sold the vehicle which is the subject matter of this complaint to some other person some months before, without seeking permission from the Forum.  On going through the deposition of the complainant, the Forum is of a considered view that, since the complainant sold the vehicle, by clearing at his paper, the relationship with the opposite party is ceased from the date of sale.  Now the registered owner of the vehicle is some other person.  Moreover, from the deposition, we can see that, actually, the registration of the vehicle in question was not transferred in the name of the complainant.  Except Ext.P1 copy of the vehicle sale deed, no other evidence are produced before the Forum to convince that the complainant is theowner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-57F-3359.  On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that, the right of the complainant as a consumer is exhausted or ceased from the date of sale of the vehicle, which is the subject matter of the complaint.

      (cont....3)

-  3  -

On the basis of above discussion, the Forum found that complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint. Hence the complaint  dismissed.  No order to cost.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of September, 2018

 

 

  SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

 

          SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER