THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.13/2016

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2017

(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.         :  President)

                                                                           Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                 :  Member

                                                                           Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B. :  Member

ORDER

Present: Rose Jose, President:             

This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The case of the petitioner in brief is that, he had sold his Hero Honda Motor Bike bearing No. KL11-AB-8115 to the 1^st opposite party for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- on 03/04/2013 as per sale agreement entered into between them on the same day. The 1^st opposite party conducting the business of buying and selling used bikes. At the time of sale the 1^st opposite party agreed that he shall not resale the vehicle to a third party before the Registration Certificate is being transferred into his name. But as against the agreement and the promise made by him, the 1^st opposite party rented the vehicle to a third party and the vehicle had met with an accident and the 3^rd opposite party had settled the dispute. Now the 3^rd opposite party is clearing the amount from him by way of RR proceedings through a demand notice issued to him by the 2^nd opposite party. It is submitted by the petitioner that, he had no job or any other income to pay the amount demanded by the 3^rd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is liable to transfer the RC into his name before giving the vehicle for rent to a third party. The inaction of the 1^st opposite party in not transferring the RC into his name as per the agreement is gross negligence and deficiency in service on his part and that caused much mental pain, huge financial loss to the tune of Rs.33,405/- and other untold sufferings to him. Hence this petition is filed to direct the 1^st opposite party to pay the demand notice amount of Rs.33,405/- and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for his sufferings and also cost of the proceedings to him.

Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 received notices issued from this Forum, but they didn’t turn up or filed version. Hence they set ex-parte.

The 3^rd opposite party in their version contended that as per the order of Hon’ble MACT, Kozhikode in OP (MV)No.1495/2013 to recover Rs.33,405/- from the petitioner by initiating revenue recovery proceedings, they have initiated RR proceedings against the petitioner through the 2^nd opposite party and the proceedings are still pending. As the petitioner seeking reliefs only from the 1^st opposite party and they have rightly proceeded against the petitioner as per the said order of the Hon’ble MACT, they are unnecessary party to this petition and hence the petition against them is to be dismissed in-limnie. The statement of the petitioner that his motor bike bearing No. KL.11-AB-8115 had been sold by him to the 1^st opposite party and that they have executed an agreement in this regard are their internal matters and they are unaware of these facts. The petitioner cannot evade from the liability of paying the amount to them as per the order of the Hon’ble MACT in OP (MV)1495/2013. There is no deficiency in service on their part as alleged and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost.

Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, Ext. s A1 to A4 and deposition of PW1. Ext. A1 is the Exchange Evaluation Form dated 03/04/2013 which shows that the 1^st opposite party had offered Rs.30,000/- as the price of the petitioner’s bike KL-11-AB-8115. Ext. A2 is the copy of receipt dated 03/04/2013 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the petitioner for the receipt of Rs.22,800/-. Ext. A3 is the demand notice from Deputy Tahsildar (RR) Kozhikode dated 18/12/2015 issued to the petitioner demanding payment of Rs.33,405/- and Ext. A4 is the copy of agreement between the petitioner and 1^st opposite party dated 03/04/2013.

A perusal of Ext. A4 agreement shows that, the 1^st opposite party had purchased the petitioner’s motor bike for Rs.30,000/- in exchange with a Bajaj Pulsar motor bike valued Rs.52,800/- and the 1^st opposite party had received the balance amount of Rs.22,800/- on the same day itself. As such he is liable to transfer its ownership into his name within the stipulated time period. The petitioner averred that as against this agreement the 1^st opposite party had rented the bike to somebody else before transferring the ownership and it met with an accident and as a result the 3^rd opposite party is demanding to reimburse the settled dispute amount of Rs.33,405/- to them. According to the petitioner actually the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay the said amount to the 3^rd opposite party and the indifferent attitude of the 1^st opposite party in this regard is deficiency in service on his part.

Considering the facts of the case and documents on record it is found that Ext. s A1 to A4 proved the case of the petitioner. The 1^st opposite party is bound to transfer the ownership of the vehicle into his name before renting the vehicle to third parties and the negligence in this regard on the side of the 1^st opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on his part and hence he is liable to compensate the petitioner for his financial loss and other sufferings due to his said act. In cross examination the petitioner stated that he is not seeking any reliefs from the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and he is ready to pay the demanded amount of Rs.33,405/- to the 3^rd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party is liable to reimburse the said amount and to compensate him for his sufferings. In view of the said finding the following order is passed.

The 1^st opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.33,405/- (Rupees thirty three thousand four hundred five only), the demanded amount by the 3^rd opposite party, to the petitioner and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation for his sufferings and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the amount will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of default till payment. 

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2017

Date of filing: 13/01/2016

SD/-MEMBER                          SD/-PRESIDENT                SD/-MEMBER

 APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Exchange Evaluation Form

A2. Copy of receipt dated 03/04/2013

A3. Copy of demand notice from opposite party No. 2

A4. Copy of agreement between complainant and 1^st opposite party

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Anoop C. (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None                                                             

Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT