BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 119 OF 2020 AGAINST ORDERS, DATED 23.12.2019 IN C.C.74/2018 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, MAHABUBNAGAR Between:

1. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Sri Jayarama Motors Pvt., Ltd., Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar.

2. The Manager, Sri Jayarama Motors Pvt., Ltd., Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar.

………..Appellants/ Opposite Parties And:

Mohd. Shabbir, S/o Late Haji Adbul Kareen, Aged 64 years, Occ.: Business, R/o H.No.29-8, Moosa Compound, Badepally Town, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

……..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties : M/s KRR Associates Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Sri GVS Prasad Rao.

QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

TUESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Opposite Parties, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Mahabubnagar, dated 23.12.2019 in CC 74/2018 where under the opposite parties with a joint and several directed to refund Rs.14,890/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- within one month from the date of this order.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Maruthi 800 (1993) Model Car, bearing No.AP 10 E 0113; that he approached the opposite parties to purchase new Maruthi Alto 800 LX I BS IV Car and sold away his Maruthi 800 car in exchange to the opposite parties for Rs.30,000/- and signed all necessary documents; that the price of old car was adjusted in the purchase of Alto Car; that the complainant purchased Alto car and subsequently sold away the same to others; that on 12.05.2016, the complainant purchased “TATA ZEST” XT QJET ABS 90PS BS4, from Mallik Cars Pvt., Ltd., and at the time of registration of the same, the office of RTA, Mahabubnagar, found that Maruthi 800 car of 1993 model still standing in the name of the complainant, as such charged 14% as tax; that the complainant was made to pay additional cost of Rs.14,890/-; that it all happened due to negligence of opposite parties and their actions, amounts to deficiency of service; that when the complainant approached opposite parties and explained about problem, he was humiliated; that the complainant got issued a legal notice, dated 30.08.2018 with a damage to pay Rs.14,890/- with interest, costs and compensation, for which no reply was given and no amount was paid; hence, the complaint.

3. The brief averments of the written version/counter of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are that the complainant has put to strict proof of all the averments made in the complaint, except those that are admitted; that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that the complainant sold his Maruthi 800 (1993) Model Car to the opposite parties for Rs.30,000/- and the same was adjusted in the purchase of Alto car; that never the opposite parties promised the complainant to transfer Maruthi 800 Model Car in their name; that the opposite parties are in habit of purchasing old car as a promotion to sell the new cars and if the old cars are not usable or roadworthy condition, they will be sold for scrap; that the tax at 14% will be levied if the complainant owns even a two wheeler also; that the opposite parties are not responsible for the additional tax of Rs.14,890/- paid by the complainant; that the complainant is filed to make a wrongful gain and there is no cause of action at all; that the alleged, abuses said to have been made by the opposite parties against the complainant, are utter false. With this requested to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4. Before the Commission below, complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A12. One Sri Ram Reddy, Managing Director of opposite party No.1, filed evidence affidavit as