State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Johny vs Popular Vehicles And Services Ltd on 23 July, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KERALA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/18/2023
JOHNY
PRESENT ADDRESS - VAZHAPPILLIL HOUSE VIMALAGIRI KARA IDUKKI TALUK ,KERALA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
POPULAR VEHICLES AND SERVICES LTD
PRESENT ADDRESS - KUTTUKARAN COMPLEX KILLIPALAM KARAMANA TRIVANDRUM
,KERALA.
BRANCH MANAGER POPULAR VEHICLES AND SERVICES
PRESENT ADDRESS - THODUPUZHA ,KERALA.
SALES REPRESENTATIVE POPULAR VEHICLES AND SERVICES
PRESENT ADDRESS - THODUPUZHA ,KERALA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
NEMO
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NEMO
DATED: 23/07/2025
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 18/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 23.07.2025 (Against the Order in C.C. 11/2019 of DCDRC, Idukki) PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER APPELLANT:
Johny, S/o Philip, Vazhappillil House, Vimalagiri P.O., Vimalagiri Kara, Idukki.
(By Adv. Shiji Joseph and Adv. Nithya S.) Vs. RESPONDENTS:
1. Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Kuttukaran Complex, Killippalam, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram-695 002 represented by its Managing Director.
2. Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Thodupuzha, Thodupuzha P.O., Pin - 685 584 represented by its Branch Manager.
3. Sales Representative, Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Thodupuzha, Pin-685
584.
(By Adv. Lal K. Joseph and Adv. R. Suja Madhav) JUDGMENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER The complainant in C.C. No. 11/2019 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (for short, 'the District Commission') is the appellant. On 27.09.2022, the District Commission had dismissed the complaint directing the complainant to pay Rs. 5,000/- each as compensatory costs to the opposite parties. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal has been filed.
2. The averments contained in the complaint, in brief, are as follows:
The complainant is the registered owner of a Wagon R car having registration No. K-7 AX 4620. The first opposite party is the Managing Director, Popular Vehicles and Services Limited. The second and third opposite parties are the Branch Manager and the Sales Representative of the first opposite party. On 28.11.2018, the opposite parties had approached the complainant and offered to purchase his car under an exchange scheme with a new Swift Dzire car at a discounted rate. They had offered Rs. 1,25,000/- for the old car owned by the complainant. On obtaining the booking order, the third opposite party had taken possession of the old car of the complainant. The third opposite party had assured to deliver the new car on 02.12.2018. But, on the next day, the second opposite party informed the complainant that they would give only Rs. 1,15,000/- for the old vehicle, which was not acceptable to the complainant. The opposite parties did not deliver the new vehicle. On 15.12.2018, the complainant had caused issuance of a lawyer notice requesting the return of the old vehicle along with compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per day for the use of the vehicle. Since the old vehicle is retained by the opposite parties, the complainant had incurred a loss of Rs. 1,000/- per day. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the complaint was filed seeking a direction against the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,25,000/-, the price of the old car along with interest at the rate of 12% from 02.12.2018. He had also sought for an order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 had entered appearance and filed a written version with the following pleadings: -
The complainant is not a consumer as defined under Sec. 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. They denied the contentions in the complaint that the opposite parties had approached the complainant and offered to purchase his vehicle for Rs. 1,25,000/- and a further agreement to exchange the same with a new Swift Dzire car. According to them, the complainant had approached them on 20.11.2018 for the purchase of a Swift Dzire car. The complainant had also expressed his desire to exchange his old car and submitted an order dated 20.11.2018. But he did not remit any amount after booking the car. While booking the new car, the complainant had requested the opposite parties to help him in selling his old car. As the complainant had rejected the sale of his old vehicle under 'True Value' scheme, he requested the opposite parties to retain the vehicle with the opposite parties for few days so that the opposite parties could exhibit the car to the prospective buyer and he may get a higher price for his old vehicle. On account of the compulsion of the complainant, the opposite parties agreed for the same. Accordingly, the complainant had entrusted the vehicle along with the documents with the opposite parties. As a goodwill gesture, the opposite parties permitted the complainant to keep his vehicle at the pay and park service for a few days. But no prospective buyers had approached for purchasing the vehicle. This fact was duly communicated to the complainant. At his request, the opposite parties had retained the vehicle for few more days. But in the meantime, the opposite parties had received a lawyer notice with untenable contentions. Immediately, the opposite parties contacted the complainant and instructed him to take back the vehicle and remit the amount towards the booking of the new vehicle. But he informed that he was not interested in purchasing a Swift Dzire car as he intended to purchase a new stylish car like Baleno and he had approached 'Nexa' showroom for the same. Though he had assured to take back his vehicle, he never took back the same. According to the opposite parties, the vehicle owned by the complainant was an old model which could fetch Rs. 25,000/- in its present condition. The dealer will not be responsible in case of delay or rejection of finance by the financier and due to unforeseen circumstances. It is incorrect to state that the opposite parties had reduced the offered price of the old vehicle. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. The opposite parties would seek for dismissal of the complaint by awarding compensatory costs.
4. On the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exhibits P1 to P3 were marked. DW1 was examined and Exhibits R1 to R3 were marked for the opposite parties.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records received from the District Commission.
6. The District Commission on evaluating the evidence tendered by the complainant and the opposite parties reached a conclusion that there was no agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties for the purchase of the old car of the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. The evidence tendered by the complainant would reveal that on the next day, he had withdrawn from the proposal.
So, accordingly, the District Commission had reached a conclusion that there was no actual agreement by the opposite parties for the purchase of the old car of the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/-. On evaluating the evidence on record, it is clear that there is dispute regarding the factual foundation of the pleadings contained in the complaint and the contention raised by the opposite parties. When a dispute arose with respect to the factual foundation of the case narrated in the complaint, the Consumer Commission cannot adjudicate the same. When factual disputes arose, the issue has to be adjudicated before an ordinary civil court. According to the complainant, there was an agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties for the purchase of his old car at Rs.1,25,000/-. This fact is disputed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties would contend that the car was retained at their premises on account of the compulsion of the complainant and there was no assurance made by them to purchase the car by paying a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The consumer commission can decide a case on the basis of the determined issues. Since the agreement and the entrustment of the vehicle with the opposite parties by fixing a consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/- is disputed, it is too difficult for a consumer commission to reach a conclusion regarding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The District Commission had answered this issue as Point No. 4. The District Commission found that the complaint is not maintainable as there was no concluded contract of the parties for the purchase of the old car and reached a conclusion that the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer of the opposite parties. After reaching such a conclusion, the District Commission, had ordered compensatory costs of Rs. 5,000/- each to the opposite parties. When the complainant is found as not a consumer, as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, leave could have been granted to the complainant to resort to his remedies before an ordinary civil court. Without resorting to such a step, the District Commission was inclined to penalise the complainant by awarding compensatory costs. The order passed by the District Commission is unwarranted. So, we set aside the order of the District Commission in awarding compensatory costs of Rs. 5,000/- each to the opposite parties.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The finding of the District Commission that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act is upheld. The order of the District Commission to pay compensatory costs of Rs. 5,000/- each to the opposite parties 1 to 3 is set aside. The complainant is free to approach an ordinary civil court to redress his grievances, if so advised and in that event, the period from 21.01.2019, the date of filing of the complaint till the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment shall stand excluded for computing the period of limitation.
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER jb ..................
SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D JUDICIAL MEMBER