MURALIDHAR Vs. K.LAKSHMINARAYANA.
LAWS(APCDRC)-2003-7-6
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on July 04,2003

MURALIDHAR Appellant
VERSUS
K.LAKSHMINARAYANA. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT - (1.) THE opposite party in C.D. No. 74/2001 on the file of District Forum, Anantapur is the appellant.
(2.) THE complainant purchased TVS Spectra Scooter on 19.3.1999 for Rs. 37,117/ - from the opposite party and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant after paying an advance of Rs. 30,000/ - while so on 19.4.1999 the vehicle met with small accident due to which the indicators were damaged. The complainant, therefore, handed over the vehicle to the appellant for repairs on 20.4.1999. When the complainant approached the appellant for collecting the vehicle, the latter demanded Rs. 19,996/ -. The complainant also learnt that the vehicle was registered as AP 02 -F -6975 in the name of the brother of the appellant. Hence this complaint.
(3.) THE District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund of Rs. 24,581/ - with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint together with costs of Rs. 400/ -. Hence the appeal. The appellant submitted before us that as the complainant failed to pay the balance, the appellant sold away the vehicle to a third party. We cannot accept this contention. The appellant does not dispute the sale. He also admits payment of part consideration and delivery of the vehicle. When the vehicle met with an accident, the same was brought before the appellant for repairs. At that stage the appellant instead of repairing conveyed the vehicle in favour of third party which is impermissible under law. Having sold the vehicle it is not open to the appellant to sell the vehicle once again to a third party. His rights if any are only to recover the balance of sale consideration. He may at best enforce his unpaid vendors lien against the vehicle for recovery of balance but he cannot take the law into his hands and high -handedly dispose of the vehicle, in lieu of his right to recover the balance. Hence the District Forum rightly directed refund of the amount to the complainant with interest. This order in our view does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance six weeks. Appeal dismissed. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.