Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/300/2020

MD.Mamoon Rashid - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vineeth Bhardway - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

   SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN             : PRESIDENT

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR          : MEMBER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                         : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.300/2020 (Filed on: 28/12/2020)

ORDER DATED : 25.07.2022

 

COMPLAINANT

 

Md.Mamoon Rasheed,

Shantimandiram, SCTRA 103,

SCTRA Nagar, Breeze Garden,

Thruvickal.P.O, Trivandrum,

 

(Party in person)

                                                          VS

 

OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Mr.Vineeth Bhardwaj,

Bharat Carrier & Contractors,

Regd, Off.Opposite Bank of India,

Sarna (Pathankot)

(Exparte)

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                  : PRESIDENT

1.           This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.           This is a complaint filed by the complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party refused to accept that notice and hence the same was returned with endorsement refused. Hence this Commission on 22.02.2021 declared the opposite party as exparte.

3.           The case of the complainant in short is that he has engaged the opposite party to transport his Honda car from Pathankot to Thiruvananthapuram. For availing the said service the complainant has paid Rs.35,000/- to the opposite party. As per the understanding the vehicle is to be transported in a car container. On 13.11.2020 the complainant received a phone call stating that the complainant’s car engine got seized near Haripad while driving from Kochi to Thiruvananthapuram and left the car by the side of the road. As per the terms of the contract the complainant’s car is to be transported by car container and not by road. When the complainant frequently contacted the Manager of opposite party, the Manager stopped attending the complainant’s call suddenly. Subsequently on 09.12.2020 the complainant got a call from a crane operator stating that he is transporting the complainant’s car to Thiruvananthapuram through crane. The complainant submits that at the time of entrusting the car with the opposite party the same was in a serviceable condition, but got delivered the vehicle in unserviceable condition, that too after a long time. According to the complainant there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainant approached this commission to redress his grievance. As the opposite party being declared exparte, they have not filed written version or documents to disprove the allegations raised by the complainant.

4.           The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4. The opposite party being declared exparte, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party.

5.The issues to be considered in this case

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
3. Order as to cost.

6.           Heard. Perused records and affidavit. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 were produced and marked. Ext.P1 is the cash receipt dated 27/09/2020. Ext.P2 is the voucher dated 27/10/2020. Ext.P3 is the copy of RC (extension). Ext.P4 is the copy of car RC.As the opposite party not appeared before this Commission, there is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant and hence the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged. In the above circumstances, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party. The complainant claimed Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. According to the complainant the repair cost of the vehicle will be above Rs.1,00,000/- and the car is under unserviceable condition at a workshop. Moreover the complainant alleges that he has received the vehicle in an unserviceable condition after a period of 70 days from the date of entrusting the vehicle to the opposite party. We find that there is no cogent evidence to establish that the vehicle is in a unserviceable condition or that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is required for repairing the car etc as the same is not supported by any documentary evidence. But in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we find that the complainant has suffered mental agony as well as financial loss due to the act on the part of the opposite party. As per the available evidence and records before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. As the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and marking Exts.P1 to P4, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite party. In the above circumstances, we find that this is a case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.

              In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.35,000/- along with Rs.75,000/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization / remittance.   

              A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

     Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 25^th day of July 2022.

 

                                                                                              Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                       Sd/-      

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

 

                                                                                         Sd/-

                          VIJU.V.R        : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

be/

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

CC.No.300/2020

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                               - M.D.Mamoon Rasheed

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                            - copy of cash receipt dated 27/09/2020

Ext.P2                            - Copy of voucher dated 27/10/2020

Ext.P3                            - Copy of Car RC (Extension)

Ext.P4                            - Copy of RC

List of witness for the opposite party - NIL

Exhibits for the opposite party          - NIL

Court Exhibits                                   - NIL

 

 

 

                                                                                              

                                                                                        PRESIDENT