First Appeal No. 53/2014. Case: Mohanan Auto Consulting Financial Agengy Vs Sainulabdeen. Kerala State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 53/2014
Party NameMohanan Auto Consulting Financial Agengy Vs Sainulabdeen
CounselFor Appellant: S. Vijayakumaran, Advocate and For Respondents: None
JudgesP.Q. Barkathali, J. President and V.V. Jose, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationIII (2014) CPJ 90 (Ker.)
Judgement DateJune 13, 2014
CourtKerala State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

P.Q. Barkathali, J. (President)

  1. This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC. 118/13 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, August 31, 2013 allowing the complaint in part and directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 8,500 and a cost of Rs. 1,500. The case of the complainant as detailed in his complaint and as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this:

    Complainant purchased an Autorikshaw from the opposite party for Rs. 65,000 on July 13, 2012. He paid Rs. 20,000 and the balance amount of Rs. 45,000 was to be paid in monthly instalments. The autorikshaw was not in good condition. Several times it has to be. repaired. Therefore complainant requested the opposite party to take back the vehicle. The opposite party took the vehicle back on January 26, 2013 and paid the complainant only Rs. 4,000. Therefore complainant filed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 26,000 after deducting the amount paid by the opposite party.

  2. The opposite party in his version contended thus before the Forum:

    It is admitted that complainant purchased the vehicle from this opposite party for Rs. 65,000. Complainant used the vehicle for four months but did not pay the monthly instalments regularly. The vehicle was damaged due to a major accident. Complainant then requested the opposite party to fix the price of the vehicle and take back the same. Complainant also executed the sale deed with opposite party with respect to the vehicle. Opposite party had to spend Rs. 19,609 for repairing the vehicle and Rs. 3,183 for insurance policy. Thus opposite parties sustained a loss of Rs. 22,792. That being so complaint has to be dismissed.

  3. Complainant was examined as PW1 he produced Exts. P1 to P6. Opposite party produced Exts. D1 to D4 before the Forum. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 8,500 and a cost of Rs. 1,500. Opposite party has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

  4. Heard the Counsel for the appellant/ opposite party and the complainant who appeared in person before the Forum.

  5. The following points arise for consideration:

  6. Whether any amount is due to the complainant from the opposite party?

  7. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

  8. It is admitted that complainant purchased the autorikshaw from opposite party for Rs. 65,000 and that he paid Rs. 20,000 in...

To continue reading

Request your trial