GE-COUNTRYWIDE CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. Vs. VIJAYA S.NAIK
LAWS(APCDRC)-2003-6-5
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on June 10,2003

Ge -Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Vijaya S.Naik Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT - (1.) THIS is an application to condone the delay of 413 days in filing the appeal. What is stated in the petitioners affidavit is that he is the Manager of the petitioner company and place of operation was shifted from Hyderabad to Secunderabad during the year 2000 and thus notice was not served on the petitioner, but he came to know after P.P. 75/2001 was filed and warrants were issued.
(2.) THIS explanation cannot be accepted. The copy of the order dated 2.7.2001 passed in C.D. No. 1370/2000 was despatched by the District Forum under Dis. No. 1367/2001, dated 17.7.2001. The petitioner has not stated a word about the said copy namely whether it was returned to the District Forum for want of correct address or lost in transit. Therefore, we hold that the petitioner has received the said copy. We, therefore, find that the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(3.) EVEN otherwise there are no merits in the appeal. The complainant approached the appellant for financial assistance for purchasing Honda City 1.3 EXI from the opposite party No. 2. The appellant forwarded the quotation showing the total cost of the car, out of which an amount of Rs. 1,25,610/ - was payable towards margin money which was accordingly paid by the complainant. The appellant itself paid the entire cost of the car to opposite party No. 2 and the car was due for delivery in the month of September, 1999. Though the complainant has waited for 2 months no delivery was effected in spite of repeated demands by the second opposite party. Hence he cancelled the booking on 11.7.1999 and requested second opposite party to refund an amount of Rs. 1,25,610/ - being the margin money as well as Rs. 39,850/ - being the two instalments paid by the complainant towards loan given by the appellant. The second opposite party however paid Rs. 1,25,610/ - and asked the complainant to recover Rs. 39,850/ - from the appellant to whom the instalments were paid. But the appellant refused to pay the said amount. Hence the complainant after issuing notice filed the complaint. The appellant did not file any written version nor contended the case. The District Forum found that there is deficiency in service and accordingly directed the appellant to refund Rs. 39,850/ - to the complainant with interest at 18 per cent per annum from 1.12.1999 till the date of payment together with costs of Rs. 300/ -. Hence the appeal. What is contended by the appellant is that it paid Rs. 5,79,000/ - to the second opposite party and, therefore, the complainant has to recover any amount from the 2nd opposite party only.;


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