Consumer Case Studies
|
| National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi |
| |
| K S Gupta, Presiding Officer, Mrs Rajyalakshmi Rao, S N Kapoor, Members. |
| |
| Murlidhar-Petitioner |
| Versus |
| K. Lakshminarayana Respondent |
| |
| Revision Petition No. 3061 of 2003 / A |
Decided on 5.12.2003 |
|
|
Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 12 & 17 Complaint Respondent purchased a scooter priced at Rs. 37,117/- & took delivery on paying Rs.30,000 - Scooter was damaged in accident & was brought to the Opp. Party (appellant) for repair Appellant demanded Rs. 19,996 Distt. Forum. Allowing complaint directed Opp Party to refund Rs.24,581 with 9% interest Order was upheld in appeal Revision Petitioner was at fault as had only bailers right to retain the vehicle till repair charges were not paid- Before selling vehicle to the third party, he could have issued notice for paying unpaid sale price Impugned order suffered no illegality. (Para 4)
Result Revision dismissed. |
|
ORDER |
|
S. N. Kapoor, Member We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/opposite party. The complainant / respondent purchased TVS Spectra Scooter on 19-3-1999 for a sum of Rs.37,117/- from the appellant. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant paying an advance sum of Rs.30,000/-. On 9-4-1999, the vehicle met with a small accident due to which the indicators were damaged. The complainant/opposite party handed over the vehicle to the appellant / Opposite party for repairs. The complainant approached the appellant / opposite party handed over the vehicle to the appellant / opposite party for repairs. The complainant approached the appellant / opposite party for collecting the vehicle. The appellant / Opposite party demand Rs. 19,996/- The Complainant also learnt that the vehicle was registered as AP-02-P-6975 in the name of the brother of Sh. Murlidhar. |
2. |
While deciding the complaint of the complainant/opposite party. The district Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 24,581/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of the complaint with costs of Rs. 400/- It was also held that the complaint was not entitled to any vehicle. However, the complainant was also supposed to pay Rs. 1418.75 incurred by respondent towards repairs, etc. Thus, allowed the claim of complainant / opposite party for Rs. 24,581/-.
|
|
|
3. |
Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad after considering the submissions and facts took the view that having sold the vehicle it was not open to the appellant to sell the vehicle once again to a third party. His right, if any was only to recover the balance of sale consideration. At the most he might have enforced his unpaid vendor’s lien against the vehicle for recovery of balance. The appellant could not take the law into his hands disposing the vehicle to the third party. The State Commission, thus, upheld the judgment of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
|
|
|
4. |
In the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, it is very much apparent that the appellant was at fault for he had only bailer’s right to retain the vehicle in as far as repair charges were not paid. He could have also revoked the agreement of sale of the vehicle in the name of the appellant by at least issuing notice of payment of the unpaid sale price of the vehicle. Since he had already sold the vehicle to the third party, the respondent/ opposite party could not use it for years. The District Forum passed an appropriate order. The State Commission has also confirmed it. We do not find it a case to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, revision petition is dismissed.
|
|
|
|
