MOH. IKARAMUL HAQ vs HAFIZ A.

THE present complaint against the opposite party for selling him a defective goods.

SHORT facts show that on 18.7.88 complainant purchased truck bearing No. MTG-2869 from the opposite party for a consideration of Rs. 1,71,000/- The opposite party has executed an agreement of sale in favour of the complainant on the same date. Later on, the complainant found that the truck was involved in transporting raw cotton outside Maharashtra State and was seized in that action. According to complainant, this fact was suppressed by the opposite party from the complainant When the complainant went to the Regional Transport Authority, Amaravati for getting their truck registered, he could not do so because of the involvement of the said truck in a crime. The complainant, therefore, filed this complaint claiming the loss suffered by him on account of the travelling etc. amount to Rs. 3,87,000/-. A Notice u/sec. 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was sent to the opposite party on 2.1.92. The opposite party refused to accept the notice of this Commission sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. It is placed on record as Exh. 1 and ''2''. The opposite party remained absent on 3.3.92 when the complaint was fixed for hearing nor did file its written version. Hence, we proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party.

The complainant filed his affidavit dated 3.3.92 in support of his allegations made in the complaint. In our view, the allegations made by the complainant stands proved on the basis of the affidavit filed by the complainant.

WE have perused the agreement dated 18.7.88 which is duly signed by opposite party and two witnesses. The opposite party has stated in that agreement that he has sold the aforesaid truck to the complainant after receiving Rs. 1,71,000/- as consideration. The opposite party has also written in the said agreement that if there is any difficulty as regards the truck in question, he will be responsible for the same. But it is found that the opposite party did not transfer the title and ownership of the truck to the complainant till the complainant filed its complaint. It is, therefore, proved that the opposite party sold a defective goods to the complainant viz. the truck which was involved in an agreement and the opposite party could not effect legal title in favour of the complainant. In our view, the consumer dispute is established in this case in-as-much as the Opposite Party sold the defective goods to the complainant after receiving full consideration. We also find that despite the defect in the goods, the truck was with the complainant and he was using it. The complainant has further made the grievance that he could not use the truck due to the fear of detection and he lost the business and had to pay for the salary of the driver and the conductor. The complainant except stating the huge figures claiming compensation did not place on record the convincing evidence to warrant the compensation of Rs. 3,87,000/- in the complaint. However, we find that the complainant has sustained a loss on account of the defective sale of goods to the complainant. The complainant is definite put to loss and injury on account of the sale of defective goods. Considering the claim of the complainant in our view, it would meet the ends of justice if Rs. 10,000/- are granted to the complainant towards the compensation which amount covers his travelling, loss of interest etc. Hence, we pass the following order:- ORDER The complainant''s complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall pay the complainant Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) as compensation within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of Rs. 18% p.a. till realisation. Complaint allowed.