BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.615 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.102 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM KAREEMNAGAR
Between:
Dr.Khairath Pasha S/o Shaik Imam
aged about 61 years, Occ: Lecturer
R/o H.No.7-3-195, Kashmirgadda
Opp: Rithu Bazar, PO & District
Kareemnagar-001
1. The Manager, Select Motors Delivery Agent
TATA Nano Car Kothirampur Locality
Hyderabad Road, PO & Dist. Karimnagar-001
2. Head Car Product Group TATA Motors Ltd.,
Passenger Car Business Unit 5th Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg (PO), Mumbai-003
rep. by its Manager
Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The complainant being dissatisfied with the award of interest form 7.05.2010 to 24.11.2011, has filed the appeal contending that the District Forum has not considered his request for proper period of interest and damages and for the car instead of refund of the amount.
2. `1,40,000/- towards total sale price to the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 allotted unique identification number 110021602 for the appellant and promised that the car would be delivered between January, 2001 and March,2001and the respondent no.1 demanded an extra amount of`76,765/- for supply of the car to the appellant. The appellant issued notice to the respondents stating that he need not pay the extra amount. The appellant while going to the respondent no.2 fell down and sustained accident and incurred much amount. The respondents colluded with each other to extract money from the appellant.
3. `1,40,000/-. The sale price Nano car is`1,84,076/-, including `2,18,765/-. As such the respondents demanded the appellant to pay balance amount of`76,765/-.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. `1,40,000/- . Photocopy of cheque, ExA1 and copy of application form, ExA2 are the documents which disclose the admitted facts that the appellant booked Nano car and paid the amount to the respondent no.1.
9. `75,765/-against their promise made in the letter dated 23.06.2009 and the respondents failed
“The application form for TATA NANO booking No.110021602 under Ex.A2 signed by the complainant contains the terms and conditions printed on the reverse, which clearly stipulate under clause VI that at the time of taking delivery of the Car, the allottee would be required to pay the balance of payment towards the price of the Car within 10 days.
10. `1,40,000/- from the appellant, the respondents did not make protest and it is the liability of the respondents to fulfill the promise and comply the terms and conditions of the contract. He has contended that as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the respondents have to deliver the vehicle at Karimnagar and not at Jagitial.
11.
“The complainant has acknowledged the receipt of the said cheque in P.A. as it was issued by opposite party after filing this complaint on 24.07.2010. But opposite party no.1 did not make any such mention in his P.A. The complainant sent his representation to opposite party no.2 on 07.05.2010 while opposite party no.2 refunded the booking amount to the complainant by means of cheque Dt: 24.11.2010 i.e. after a lapse of six months, which is a long delay on the part of opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.2 did not attach any letter with the cheque explaining reason for refunding booking amount. Opposite party no.1 filed the price list of TATA NANO w.e.f. 01.07.2009 under Ex.B1 before this Forum but it was not supplied to the complainant in response to his representation Dt: 07.05.2010. It is but natural that when a hefty sum of Rs.76,765/- was demanded as extra amount from the complainant doubts were raised for clarification and they needed to be answered by the dealer in a transparent and candid manner. Opposite party no.2 kept silent for six months and latter refunded the booking amount to the complainant after the filing of this complaint without any clarificatory letter which amounts to deficiency in service. More over opposite party did not file the clippings of the News Paper in which the rate of the said Car was published nor any such paper displayed in the show room of the dealer as pleaded in its counter”.
12. `75,765/- was demanded. The District Forum held that the respondents failed to file the clippings of the newspaper in which the sale price of Nano car was published.
13.
Aggrieved by the return of booking amount of Rs.1,40,000/- by cheque from opposite party no.2 the complainant addressed another letter Dt: 05.01.2011 under Ex.A10 to opposite party no.2 questioning the validity of demanding extra amount beyond the agreed amount and termed the action of opposite party no.2 the illegal and against the public policy but opposite party no.2 failed to respond to that letter which amounts to breach of obligation towards its customers/complainant”.
14.
15. The District Forum is directed to dispose of the matter as per law after giving opportunity to both sides to lead evidence. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER
కె.ఎం.కె*
