IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A.No.45/2015 (Against the order made in C.C.No.11/2012 dated 20.03.2015 on the file of the District Forum, Karur.)

WEDNESDAY, THE 23^rd DAY OF MARCH 2022 The Manager (Sales), M/s.Kun Capital Automotives Private Limited, Old No.113/2, New No.40/2, Chennai Bye-Pass Road, Ariyamangalam, Tiruchirappalli. Appellant/2^nd Opposite Party -Vs-

1. Balaguru, S/o Chellappa Naciker, 3/365, Andipatti Kottai, Jamin Alamarathupatti Post, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. S.Senthilkumar, Sale Consultant, M/s.Kun Capital Automotives Private Limited, Old No.113/2, New No.40/2, Chennai Bye-Pass Road, Ariyamangalam, Tiruchirappali. 2nd Respondent/1st Opposite Party

3. The General Manager, Corporate Office, Ashok Leyland, No.1, Sardhar Patal Road, Guindy, Chennai-32. 3rd Respondent/3rd Opposite Party Counsel for Appellant/Opposite party-2 : Mr.G.Sridharan, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent-1/Complainant : Served Called Absent.

Counsel for Respondents-2&3/Opposite Parties-2&3 : Given-up.

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 15.11.2021 and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/2^nd opposite party under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the learned District Forum, Karur made in C.C.No.11/2012, dated

20.03.2015, allowing the complaint.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Karur.

3. The 2^nd opposite party, suffering by an order, directing the second opposite party to return the amount after deducting the excess amount of Rs.18,758/- by calculating compound interest at the rate of 3% and deliver the vehicle to the complainant within 15 days. The complaint against the first and third opposite party was dismissed in the hands of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), has preferred this appeal before this Commission.

4. The case of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant booked four wheeler commercial vehicle "DOST" on 05.01.2012 with the 2^nd opposite party through the 1^st opposite party and paid an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the 1^st opposite party on the same day. The cost of the vehicle was fixed at Rs.4,09,500/-, insurance amount at Rs.17,910/- and temporary registration at Rs.4,000/- totaling a sum of Rs.4,31,410/-. The 1^st opposite party had assured the complainant that the vehicle may be delivered within 45 days of booking. Thereafter, on 05.03.2012, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.71,310/- to the 2^nd opposite party and also paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 12.04.2012 to Sundaram Finance Limited. Since the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties did not deliver the vehicle within 45 days of booking, the complainant suffered serious mental agony and irreparable financial loss. The 2^nd opposite party had written a letter dated 21.03.2012 to the complainant stating that the cost of the vehicle was increased to Rs.4,28,258/- for which the complainant had sent a legal notice to the 2^nd opposite party on 26.04.2012. The 2^nd opposite party gave a reply notice dated 04.05.2012. As the sales representative of the 2^nd opposite party, duty is cast upon the 1^st opposite party to deliver the vehicle within 45 days. In spite of the payment of the entire cost of the vehicle, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have failed to deliver the vehicle and thereby resulting in deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and in the said circumstances, he filed the complaint. Therefore, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards cost, interes