KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 205/2021

JUDGMENT DATED: 06.10.2021

(Against the Order in C.C. 362/2018 of CDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Managing Director, Srivari Automotive Pvt. Ltd., 27/1/3, Karunakaran Nambiar Road, Thrissur.

(By Adv. Unnikrishnan V.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. K.U. Vasudevan, Thalayanakkunnu Desom, Irinjalakuda North, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur.
2. Manager, Srivari Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Mahindra Dealers, Near Vellangallur Block Office, P.O. Vellangallur, Thrissur. 
3. Proprietor, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Automotive Sector, Mahindra Towers, 3^rd Floor, Akurli Road, Kandivali (East) Mumbai-400 101.

JUDGMENT

SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER

This appeal has come up for admission.  The 1^st opposite party in C.C. No. 362/2018 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, in short, the District Commission, has filed this appeal against the order dated 30.12.2020.  The District Commission has by its order directed the opposite parties 1 & 2 to return an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 12% interest from the date of complaint along with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

The case of the complainant in brief is that he had booked one Mahindra Alpha Plus carriage vehicle on 26.03.2018 with the 1^st opposite party, the dealer of the vehicle.  The 2^nd opposite party is the Manager of 1^st opposite party and 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer.  He had paid Rs. 1,00,000/- on 26.03.2018 as advance and his order was accepted as 2157 in the booking form.  However, the 2^nd opposite party, the Manager did not issue any receipt for the payment.  Though opposite parties 1 & 2 had promised to arrange a loan for the vehicle, they failed to do so.  Hence, the complainant demanded refund of the booking charge of Rs. 1,00,000/- from opposite parties 1 & 2, but they refused to repay the amount paid by him.  Hence he filed the complaint demanding refund of             Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest, compensation and costs. 

The opposite parties 1 & 2 though entered appearance, did not file written version and contest the case. 

Since there was no contra evidence, the District Commission relying on the affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts. P1 to P4 which were marked on the side of the complainant, without objection, allowed the complaint.   The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the order under challenge.  The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the opposite parties did not receive Rs. 1,00,000/- as contended by the complainant