KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CC.NO.29/2012
JUDGMENT DATED : 28.11.2014
PRESENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT.A.RADHA : MEMBER
SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Benny Varghese,
Keeyayil House,
Maneed.P.O
Ernakulam (Dist)
Kerala – 686 726 COMPLAINANT
(Party present in person)
VS
1. Proprietor (Dealer)
M/s.Maxim Motors (P) Ltd,
34/135, Meenu’s Buildings,
NH-47, Bypass Edappally,
Ernakulam (Dist)
Cochin – 682024
2. Manager (Senior) OPPOSITE PARTIES
S.B.T.Mulanthuruthy,
P.B.No.2, Pallathatta Buildings,
Mulanthuruthy.P.O
Ernakulam
Kerala
3. The Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd,
Edappally Branch,
Ebenezer Garden,
1st Floor, Near High School Jn,
Edappally,
Ernakulam, Cochi – 682 024
4. Joint RTO,
RTO Office,
Mudavoor.P.O OPPOSITE PARTIES
Muvattupuzha,
Ernakulam
Kerala
(R1 by Adv.Sri.A.Santhoshkumar)
(R2 by Adv.Sri.Kalkura)
(R3 by Adv.Sri.Manikantan Nair)
(R4 by Sri.Babu Peter, RTO)
JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is a complaint filed u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. The allegations in the complaint in brief are the following. The complainant a driver by profession wanted to purchase Swaraj Mazda Goods Carriage vehicle with the brand name Samrat capable of carrying 10,250 kgs and for the purpose he availed loan from the second opposite party. The first opposite party is the dealer of the vehicle. The third opposite party is the insurer. The fourth opposite party is the Joint RTO, Muvattupuzha. The opposite party in collusion with each other gave the complainant a goods carriage vehicle of different make. Further there was delay in sanctioning the loan. The first opposite party who received the entire sale price failed to deliver the vehicle within the time agreed. They delayed delivery of the vehicle for about two months in the meanwhile the complainant was forced to remit two EMIs to the loanee bank. The vehicle from the beginning showed gear slip and the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the dealer. At the time of delivering the vehicle owners manual and service book were not given to the complainant. On examining the computer copy of the insurance policy the brand name of the vehicle is seen shown as super Tipper. When the complainant approached the dealer for the original policy only pages 1 & 2 of the policy document were made available to the complainant. In the Porforma invoice as well as in the cover note of the insurance company the brand name of the vehicle is shown as samrat with GVW 10250 kg. But in the original policy different brand name super Tipper with GVW 8720kg is recorded. The complainant came to know of this fact only when he obtained the policy on 25.05.2011. Thus, the complainant was defrauded by the dealer in collusion with the insurance company. Finding no alternative the complainant approached the permanent adalath at Ernakulam. But the application was dismissed directing the complainant to approach the Consumer Court. The 4th opposite party who was an officer well aware of the technical names of the vehicle effected registration without including the brand name in collusion with the other opposite parties. As a result, the complainant was unable to ply his vehicle to earn his livelihood and he was put to irreparable loss and
Back
