G VENKATA SUBBAIAH COOK Vs. K GOWTHAM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the first opposite party in OP No.56/1996 questioning the order of the Nellore District Forum in that O. P. dated 24.7.1997 directing him to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from 14.11.1993 till the date of payment and also to pay damages of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.500/-. The complaint against the second and third opposite parties was dismissed by the District Forum, they are the second and third respondents in this appeal, but the appeal is not being pressed against them. The complainant is the first respondent in this appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the complainant that the brother of the appellant i. e. , G. V. Krishnaiah was the owner of an Ambassador car bearing registration No. APU 8145 and that he was using it as a taxi. The complainant was hiring that car to go to Hyderabad from Nellore and other places and paying hire charges. Mr. G. V. Krishnaiah approached him for an advance of Rs.50,000/- to modernise his car by installing a diesel engine and promised to hire the car after modernising to the complainant and to adjust the hire charges against the loan amount. On that basis the complainant advanced a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Krishnaiah. On 14.11.1993 Krishnaiah executed a document in his favour and handed over the C-Book of the car to him. After the car was repaired and modernised the complainant was taking the car for tours. According to the complainant the loan amount was still outstanding when G. V. Krishnaiah died on 11.5.1994. According to the complainant the appellant clandestinely took the possession of the car without his knowledge and was using it as a taxi at Gudur after G. V. Krishnaiah died. When the complainant told the appellant about the advance given by him to his brother G. V. Kelshnaiah and to arrange for hiring the car to him for his tours the appellant refused to do either. He also forged documents with the connivance of opposite parties 2 and 3 creating evidence to show that he was the owner of the car. It was under those circumstances that the complainant approached the District Forum.

(3.) The appellant appeared before the District Forum and contended that no consumer dispute was made out on the facts narrated by the complainant. He contended that G. V. Krishnaiah owned a car bearing No. APU 8145 and that he was not running it as a taxi but was using it as a regular owner car. He also denied that G. V. Krishnaiah was hiring the car to the complainant and that G. V. Krishnaiah borrowed Rs.50,000/- to modernise his car.