IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F.A. No. 548 of 2022 [(Against the order passed in C.C. No.69 of 2022 dated 16.09.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Nilgiris)].

Thursday, the 13^th day of June 2024 The Manager M/s. Chandra Honda

1/5C Thondamuthur Road Vadavalli, Coimbatore-641 041 .. Appellant/

1st Opposite Party - Vs –

1. S. Vijayalakshmi W/o. Mr.K.Srinivasan No.36, 9th Cross Street New Thillai Nagar, P.N.Pudur Coimbatore- 641 041. .. 1^st Respondent/

Complainant

2. The Manager Sriram City Union Finance No.2, Padma Suganya Complex Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore-641 038. .. 2^nd Respondent/

2nd Opposite Party Counsel for Appellant/

1^st Opposite Party : M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/

Complainant : M/s. M.Samuel Raja

2^nd Respondent/2^nd opposite party : Served, Called Absent This appeal has come before us for final hearing today, on

13.06.2024 and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the 1^st respondent and on perusing the material on records, this Commission made the following

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT [Open Court]

This appeal has been filed by the 1^st opposite party as against the order dated 16.09.2022 passed in C.C. No.69 of 2022, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nilgiris, allowing the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent herein, in part.

2. The appellant is the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st respondent is the complainant and the 2^nd respondent is the 2^nd opposite party before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their ranking before the District Commission.

3. The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows: The Complainant intended to buy a two wheeler and hence she approached the 1^st opposite party and booked the vehicle “HONDA-DIO”, grey colour on 07.11.2014, at an estimated cost of Rs.58,500/-. Since the said vehicle was not available with the 1^st opposite party, the complainant was asked to pay an initial advance amount of Rs.18,500/- for booking and to pay the remaining amount while taking delivery of the vehicle. The complainant also paid the advance amount of Rs.18,500/- vide receipt No.V 1577 dated 07.11.2014. On 19.11.2014, the 1^st opposite party called the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle, after paying the balance amount. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- vide receipt No. V1663 dated 19.11.2014 being the remaining amount, towards full and final settlement. However, the 1^st opposite party had given the retail invoice No.14IN04464 only for a sum of Rs.47,762/- without any seal or signature of the 1^st opposite party. On enquiry, the complainant was informed that the said invoice is a mere print out, which does not require any seal or signature and the amount mentioned therein is the basic price. The complainant paid a further sum of Rs.1396/- towards insurance of the vehicle. The 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the RC Book and insurance copy would be provided in a couple of weeks. After a couple of weeks, the complainant was given only a print out of the insurance copy, wherein it has been mentioned that the complainant’s vehicle has been hypothecated with Sri Ram City Union Finance, the 2^nd opposite party herein. When the complainant sought for clarification, she was informed that it was a typographical error and was asked to ignore the same. The 1^st opposite party also promised the complainant that they would hand over the RC Book within a month. But, even after a month the 1^st opposite party did not handover the RC Book to the complainant. Whileso, the complainant had a critical financial crisis and she intended to sell the vehicle. But due to non-availability of the RC book, the complainant could neither sell her vehicle nor pledge/mortgage the same without proper documents. The complainant very often visited the showroom of the 1^st opposite part