BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

     SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER

                                                                              SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER                                     

Thursday, 28^th April 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  06/ 2016

Penumaru Chandra Sekhar, S/o P. Radha Krishnaiah,

aged 47 years, APSRTC Conductor, D.No. 10/408,

Gunthapalle, 6^th Block, Badvel,

YSR (Kadapa) District.                                                         ….. Complainant.  

Vs.   

1.  Shriram Automall India Ltd., Rep. by it’s

     the Manager, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa.

2.  Shriram Automall India Ltd., Re. by it’s the Manager,

     Mookambika Complex, III Floor, No. 4,

     Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai,

     Tamil Nadu – 600004.                                             …..Respondents.

This complaint coming for final hearing on 19-4-2016 in the presence of Sri B. Bhaskar, Advocate for complainant and Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 and  upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),

1.             The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 19,999/- to the petitioner with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and costs. 

2.             The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the respondents are doing business and the petitioner is an employee in APSRTC.  Respondent No. 1 offered to sell two wheelers and four wheelers in public auction at 1^st respondent office and complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 19,999/- as refundable security on 9-1-2016 to participate in the auction and the petitioner participated in the car auction.  But he has not purchased any vehicle in the auction.  After completion of auction on 9-1-2016 at evening he approached 1^st respondent and enquired about the condition of Chevrolet Beat LT vehicle bearing No. AP 16 AY : 0995 and 1^st respondent stated that it is in good condition and requested to purchase the same at Rs. 2,50,000/-.  When the petitioner demanded to verify the vehicle condition 1^st respondent stated that the keys of the vehicle are with main office and requested come on 11-01-2016.  He went on 11-1-2016 and found that the engine was not in good condition and needs re-bore.  The petitioner questioned the 1^st respondent with false statement and demanded for return of his deposit amount.  1^st respondent promised to pay the same after the next auction date.  Thus the 1^st respondent service is not proper and defective and he had not fulfilled his promise till date and refused to refund deposit amount.  Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No. 1.  Hence,  this complaint.  Respondent No. 2 is head of Shriram Automall India Limited hence, he is need as party to the complaint.

3.             Respondents 1 & 2 filed common counter they denied allegations in the complaint regarding refund of deposit amount deficiency of service etc.,   it is further contended that the complaint approached R1 with an intention to purchase car after going through terms and conditions of agreement he deposited Rs. 19,999/- and registered his name for bidding on 9-1-2016  he participated in the bid for the vehicle bearing No. AP 16 AY : 0995 Chevrolet Beat model 2012 and stood as successful bidder for that vehicle and agreed to purchase for Rs. 2,50,000/- and executed a letter on 9-1-2016 in favour of respondents and also agreed to pay 1% as sale amount as service charges to the respondents and undertook to pay sale amount within 7 days as terms and conditions of auction agreement.   But the complainant failed to pay the balance amount within stipulated time on 29-1-2016.  Respondent No. 1 called by the Sub-inspector of Police, Chinnachowk police station, Kadapa on the complaint lodged by the complaint for alleged offences fraud and false statement. After due enquiry the concerned police station found no fault on the part of the R1, however, R1 was made to refund of Rs. 10,000/- towards settlement to the complainant on pressure.  The complainant after receipt of Rs. 10,000/- endorsed the same on rear side of the complaint on 29-1-2016 and also endorsed on the receipt dt. 9-1-2016 regarding receiving of Rs. 10,000/-.  As per conditions of the agreement in case of failure to pay remaining sale amount by successful bidder is not entitled to refund of security deposit and the same shall be forfeited by the respondents.   Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents and the complainant is not a consumer.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

4.             On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents as pleaded by the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed against the respondents as prayed?
3. To what relief?

5.             No oral evidence has been let in by the parties.  But on behalf of complainant  Exs. A1 and  A2 and on behalf of the respondents Exs. B1 to B6 documents are marked.       

6.             Heard arguments on both sides and carefully perused documentary evidence placed by the parties.    

7.             Point Nos. 1 & 2. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that the R1 obtained signatures of the complainant under Ex. B2, B3, though he did not participated in the auction of car and not refunded his amount.  However, they refunded Rs. 10,000/- as per Ex. B4, B5 endorsement on the police report given against R1 and balance amount of Rs. 9,999/- was not refunded and the same is to be refunded to the complainant by R1.  Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the R1. Hence, the complaint may be allowed to that effect for refund of deposited balance amount. 

8.             Per contra learned counsel for respondents submitted since the compliant became highest bidder at Rs. 2,50,000/- and failed to pay the balance of car sale amount within 7 days, as per terms and conditions he is not entitled for refund of amount.  However, on the pressurization of police at the instance of complainant they paid Rs. 10,000/-and settled the matter and surprising the said facts the complainant filed complaint for total refund of Rs. 19,999/- and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.     

9.             There is no dispute in this case that the complainant participated in the bid and deposit an amount of Rs. 19,999/- with R1 to participate in the auction for the vehicle bearing No. AP 16 AY : 0995 on 9-1-2016 and he intended to purchase vehicle at Rs. 2,50,000/-.  However, he could not pay the balance amount within stipulated period of 7 days. According, to the complainant the condition of the vehicle was not good so he demanded for refund of the amount for which the respondent refused on 29-1-2016 it appears the complainant preferred a police report against R1 and police called R1 and enquired about the false statement given by R1, regarding the condition of the vehicle and as seen from Ex. B4, B5 R1 paid Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant towards the refundable deposit amount deposited by him.   Though the respondents contended that the deposited amount was forfeited since the complainant failed to pay the balance amount within 7 days, but the said contention   cannot be upheld as R1 himself paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards refundable deposited amount to the complainant.  Since, R1 had already paid Rs. 10,000/- towards the deposited amount by complainant he has not right to  retain the balance of Rs. 9,999/- payable to the complainant.  Thus viewed in this angle there is deficiency in service on the part of R1 and R1 is liable to refund Rs. 9,999/- to the complainant.  Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.

10.            Point No. 3. In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 9,999/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine only) to the complainant and also pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) within 45 days from the date of receipt this order lest the above amount shall carry interest at 12% p.a. till realization.  The complaint against respondent No. 2 is dismissed, as no relief is claimed against him.   

          Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 28^th April 2016

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant:         NIL                                   For Respondents :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -  

Ex. A1       P/c of receipt dt. 9-1-2016 regarding depost of Rs. 10,999/-.

Ex. A2       P/c of details of vehicle bearing No. Ap 16 AY : 0995. 

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents: -        

                        Ex. B1       Catalogue  issued by the respondents showing the sale of vehicles.

Ex. B2       Original event registration form dt. 9-1-2016 filed by the complainant along with his voter I.D. card.

Ex. B3       Original letter dt. 9-1-2016 executed by the complainant in favour of respondents indicating successful customer.

Ex. B4       complaint dt. 29-1-2016 given by the complaint  to the Sub-Inspector of police Chinnachowk P.S. Kadapa along with his acknowledgement of receipt of Rs. 10,000/- from the respondents. 

Ex. B5       Original receipt dt. 9-1-2016 issued by the respondents alon with the acknowledgements of receipt Rs. 10,000/- made the complainant.

                       Ex. B6       Letter of authorization issued by the R2 in favour of R1.

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1. Sri B. Bhaskar, Advocate for complainant  
2. Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for respondents.

B.V.P