K.S. MURUGAIYAN vs S.R. SELVARAJ

-THE complainant''s case is follows : THE complainant purchased a Matador van from the 1st opposite party on 22.5.1998 for a sum of Rs. 44,000/-. THE complainant received only the R.C. book. He did not receive the other documents such as loan clearance certificate, insurance, name transfer form and also did not receive the spare parts and the stepny, jakky, etc. According to the agreement, he has to hand over the same and receive the balance of Rs. 8,000/- on 10.6.1998. But the 1st opposite party failed to hand over the other documents or the spare parts, jakky as undertaken by him. THE complainant also understood that the 1st opposite party was trying to encash the cheque given by him. THE 1st opposite party left Thanjavur without informing the complainant about his whereabouts. Later, learning about his address, the complainant sent notice calling upon the opposite party to receive the balance of Rs. 8,000/- and hand over all the documents. THEreafter, through the Consumer Protection Council he approached and receive the documents. But, as the documents were not renewed within the period, the complainant could not ply the van. On account of the act of the opposite party the complainant has lost the use of the van and also lost a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month which he would have earned easily by plying the van. Further, he has been put to lot of mental strain and agony. THErefore, the complainant has made a claim in a sum of Rs. 1,96,000/- apart from a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.

THE opposite parties contended that the complainant is not a consumer. THE complainant wants to enforce an agreement. THE remedy is available only before the Civil Forum. THE van is being used by the complainant for the purpose of private school run by him. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable. THE complainant ought to have taken steps to obtain the signature of the opposite party in transfer order form. THE complainant has not paid the sum of Rs. 8,000/-. THEre is no deficiency in service. The Lower Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

It is the admitted case of the parties that both the complainants and the 1st opposite party entered into agreement for the purchase of Metador van costing Rs. 44,000/-. It is also admitted that out of Rs. 44,000/- only Rs. 36,000/- has been paid and the balance of Rs. 8,000/- had to be paid and it had to be paid on or before 10.6.1998 and on receipt of it the original documents relating to the vehicle have to be handed over by the 1st opposite party. The case is thus tested on an agreement. The allegations are to the effect that the opposite party committed breach of agreement. Once the breach of agreement is pleaded, then it is only a Civil Court which has got the jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint. The complainant is a buyer of a movable property. Even according to the complainant, he has not paid the entire sale consideration and that still a sum of Rs. 8,000/- has to be paid by him. In the complaint, it is also stated by him that he can pay the balance of Rs. 8,000/- only after plying the vehicle for six months by which time he hopes to realize sufficient income to repay the amount. Thus, it is clear that the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer. He is at best an agreement holder or a buyer. On his own showing he is yet to pay the balance of Rs. 8,000/-. If he had paid the entire amount and in spite of it the opposite party has not handed over the documents, then it would definitely amount to deficiency in service. But, in this case, in respect of the agreement which is sought to be enforced, the complainant himself has failed to perform his part of the agreement. While so, he cannot accuse the other side of failure to perform his part of the agreement and dub it as a consumer dispute and seek to bring it within the ambit of this Forum. Hence, the view of the Lower Forum that the complaint is not maintainable cannot be termed as an erroneous one. In the circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal.

IN the result, the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without cost. The order of the Lower Forum is hereby set aside. Appeal dismissed.