M.K. RAGHAVAN PILLAI Vs. POPULAR VEHICLES & SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT /Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) against judgment and order dated 13.9.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta in complaint case No. 53/2013 filed on 24.4.2013. Appellant purchased a second hand Maruti 800 Car from the 1st opposite party based on 1st opposite party's advertisement during April 2011, which stated the 1st opposite party offered an MP III player free of cost to the purchasers who purchases second hand Maruti cars from them between 7.4.2011 and 10.4.2011. Appellant impressed on the advertisement purchased Maruti 800 car from the 1st opposite party and issued two cheques, viz. No. 2017959 dated 7.4.2011 of Pandalam Treasury for Rs. 1,10,000 and cheque No. 662246 dated 7.4.2011 for Rs. 30,701 of Federal Bank, Kulanada to the 1st opposite party on 7.4.2011 vide their receipt No. 10344 and 10345. However said cheques were not issued and delivery of vehicle delayed. Later Appellant was informed the treasury cheque for Rs. 1,10,000 was not encashed due to some technical problems of the opposite party. The Federal Bank cheque for Rs. 30,701 was encashed by them on 14.4.2012. As the treasury cheque was not enchased which was intimated by the 1st opposite party, the complainant directly paid the cash to the 1st opposite party on 24.4.2011 and on that day itself the car was delivered by the opposite party. Moreover the appellant urges that he was under the impression that the opposite party would conduct the registration for the vehicle, but were as he had to run after the registration process and it is alleged opposite parties had charged Rs. 1,000 as service charges. Further they have not given the MP III player to the complainant as per their advertisement and appellant had to buy steering cover which costed Rs. 300. According to the complainant, the above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and hence the 1st opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence appellant approached lower Forum for an order directing the opposite parties to give 12.5% interest for Rs. 158, which is the interest of Rs. 30,071 from 11.4.2011 to 25.4.2011 and its interest at the rate of 12% from 26.4.2011 to till the realization and for the return of Rs. 1,000 the service charge collected by the opposite party and for the return of Rs. 300, the cost of the steering cover along with compensation of Rs. 20,000 for denying the MP III player along with Rs. 15,000 as compensation for the mental agony and other inconveniences sustained to the complainant.

(2.) THE opposite parties claimed two cheques issued by the complainant, cheque for Rs. 1,10,000 was not enchased and it was intimated to the complainant and the complainant paid the said cheque amount in cash directly on 25.4.2011 and on receiving the whole amount the car selected by the appellant was delivered to him, hence all the delay in delivering the car occurred due to the non -receipt of the cash. The registration of the said car was made by the opposite parties along with 10 other cars delivered by the opposite parties to different purchasers. The delivery and sale of the complainant's car was not within the dates published in their advertisement and hence the complainant has no right for the offers in the advertisement and hence he is not entitled to get the offers made by the opposite parties. The selected car was delivered in its as is where condition after conducting a normal service and the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction after giving a written undertaking that he had no complaints. This complaint is filed after a lapse of about 2 years in spite of his written under taking that he had no complaints. The 2nd opposite party is no way connected with transactions and 1st opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. The complainant's allegations are false and frivolous and this complaint is not allowable and the opposite parties are not liable to the complainant. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the complainant preferred the above appeal.