BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
F.A.No.609 /2012 against C.C.No.262/2010, Dist.Forum-1, Hyderabad.
Between:
The Managing Director,
M/s. RKS Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
# 6-3-905, Saboo Towers,
Rajbhavan Road,Somajiguda,
Hyderabad-500 082. ...Appellant/
Opp.party no.2
And
1.Mrs. Nidhi Kohli,
W/o.Mr. Ajay Suri,
R/o.Flat No.206, Minar Apts.,
Deccan Towers, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad – 500 001. ...Respondent /
Complainant
2. The Managing Director,
M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Regional Office, Andhra Pradesh,
# 101 & 102, First Floor,
Mahavir Chambers, Liberty Square Stanza,
Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 029.
3. The Managing Director,
M/s. Naidu Motors Ltd.,
# 167-B, BK Guda,
SR Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 038. Respondents/
Opp.parties
1 & 3
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. V.Gowrisankar Rao
Counsel for the respondents : R1- party in person.
R2 & R3- served.
F.A.No.610 /2012 against C.C.No.262/2010, Dist.Forum-1, Hyderabad.
Between:
Mrs. Nidhi Kohli,
W/o.Mr. Ajay Suri,
R/o.Flat No.206, Minar Apts.,
Deccan Towers, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad – 500 001. ...Appellant/
Complainant
And
1.The Managing Director,
M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Regional Office, Andhra Pradesh,
# 101 & 102, First Floor,
Mahavir Chambers, Liberty Square Stanza,
Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 029.
2.The Managing Director,
M/s. RKS Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
# 6-3-905, Saboo Towers,
Rajbhavan Road,Somajiguda,
Hyderabad-500 082.
3. The Managing Director,
M/s. Naidu Motors Ltd.,
# 167-B, BK Guda,
S R Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 038. ...Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the Appellant : Party in person.
Counsel for the respondents : M/s.V.Gowrisankar Rao –R2.
R1 & R3- notice served.
QUORUM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT,
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN.
Oral Order: (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member
***
Both the appeals arise out of one and the same order dt. 16.4.2012 of the Dist.Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad in C.C.No.262/2010. For the sake of convenience , the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
F.A.No.609/2012 is filed by the opp.party no.2 and F.A.No.610/2012 is filed by the complainant .
Since both the appeals arise out of one and the same order, both the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by common order.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is that the complainant booked Maruti Swift Vdi car with ABS ( Anti-skid Breaking System) through opp. party no.3 on 6.9.2008. It was mutually agreed that an amount of Rs.3 lakhs shall be paid, at the time of booking and the balance shall be paid, at the time of delivery and opposite party no.3 agreed to deliver the vehicle on 19.9.2008. But the opposite party no.3 failed to deliver the vehicle on the said date and after repeated follow ups with opposite party no.3 and after approaching opposite party no.1, the complainant was advised to approach opposite party no.2, to make the balance payment and take the delivery of the vehicle from them. The complainant made payment of Rs.1 lakh by cash on 29.12.2008 and Rs.1,79,063/- on 2.1.2009 to opposite party no.2 and got delivery of car along with delivery challan and insurance documents and the opposite party no.2 assured that the invoice and balance documents would be released in three to four days time, after the advance payment made by the complainant to opp.party no.3, received by them. The Sales Manager of opp.party no.2 informed that the invoice would be dt.31.12.2008 though the delivery had actually happened on 2.1.2009. But the opposite party no.2 did not deliver the balance documents even after couple of months stating that they have not received the payment from opp.party no.3. The complainant approached opposite party no1, who on enquiry informed the complainant to collect the documents from opposite party no.2. When the complainant approached opp.party no.2, he was informed that they have received the payment from opp.party no.3 in the end of February,2009 and that there is balance due of Rs.7,545/-, towards interest charged, for the period of delay and also stated that until the said amount is paid, they will not release the documents. The complainant sent notice dt.20.7.2009 to the opp.parties, for which he received a reply from opposite party no.2, asking the complainant to make payment of Rs.7,545/-. The complainant wrote letter dt.19.8.2009 to opp.party no.1, mentioning that it is an internal matter of opp.party no.1 and its dealers, for which they should not with held the documents of the customer, which is causing inconvenience and they are unable register the vehicle, in the absence of the invoice and for the said letter, the complainant did not receive any reply. Hence the complaint, seeking directions to the opposite parties to deliver the balance documents of the car Maruti Swift Vdi Silky Silver colour with ABS T/R number AP 09 GP T/R 612, to change the Invoice date as 2.1.2009 instead of 31.12.2008, any liabilities occurring due to the vehicle meeting with an accident or any other situation covered by the comprehensive insurance shall be born by M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. during the period of discontinuation of insurance of the vehicle until the issue is resolved and the free servicing vouchers should be renewed for a period of one year.
Resisting the complaint, opposite party no.1 filed written statement, denying the allegations made in the complaint and contending that they are not privy to the transaction, alleged to have happened between the complainant and opp.parties 2 and 3 and there is no contractual relationship between the complainant and this opposite party and hence opp.party no.1 is neither a necessary nor a proforma party to the complaint. It is further submitted that opp.parties 2 and 3 are independent entities, having their own Memorandum of Articles of Association and they are not authorized representatives of opposite party no.1, as contended by the complainant. As per the Clause 5 of the Dealership Agreement, executed between this opposite party and dealers, the dealer shall not be deemed to be the agent or representative for any purpose and the dealer shall not describe or represent itself as such. The dealers of the opposite party no.1 sell the vehicles to their customers, against their own contract for sale and by their own invoices and sale certificate and hence this opp.party is not required to issue or provide alleged documents, to the complainant, since the sale of the car took place between the complainant and opp.party no.2. The opposite party contended that with malafide intention, the complainant impleaded this opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
Opposite party no.2 filed written arguments, contending that the complainant is not a consumer and that there is neither defect in the goods nor deficiency in service on their behalf. This opposite party submits that the complainant visited their showroom and made payment of Rs.1 lakh and promised to pay the balance amount within 2 to 3 hours and instructed to keep the invoice ready on 31.12.2008, but he delayed the process and came only on 02.01.2009. Once the invoice is blocked into the system, there is no way to change again, as the same data is automatically updated in Maruti records and RTA records. The cheque given by opposite party no.3 was bounced and on repeated followups and reminders, opp.party no.3 made cheque payment of Rs.3 lakhs on 25.2.2009 which was credited into account of opp.party no.2 only on 28.2.2009. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 gave number of reminders, to the complainant to collect the documents after paying an amount of Rs.7,545/-towards interest. It was clearly mentioned on the backside of the delivery challan that interest will be charged, on any delay in payment and the same will be collected from the customer. It is further submitted that for whatever transactions took place between opposite party no.3 and the complainant, this opp.party is not concerned. As the complainant paid insurance premium, insurance coverage was duly provided and the complainant had to lodge any claim with the insurance company by following the procedure of RTA Registration and insurance claims and this opp.party is not responsible in this aspect. The delay in release of the documents was due to delayed payment and non payment of interest by the complainant. This opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Though notice was served on opposite party no.3, there was no representation on their behalf and hence called absent.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove her case, the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. Mr.Nand Kishore Patel, Vice President of opposite party no.2 filed Chief affidavit and Exs.B1 to B8 got marked on behalf opposite party no.2.
The District Forum based on the evidence and pleadings put forward partly allowed the complaint directing opposite party no.2 to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with costs of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within 30 days. The complaint against opposite parties 1 and 3 dismissed without costs.
Aggrieved by the said order opposite party no.2 filed F.A.No.609/2012 and not satisfied with the said order, the complainant filed F.A.No.610/2012.
The appellant/complainant in F.A.No.610/2012 filed F.A.I.A.694/2013 seeking to receive the following documents as additional evidence:
1. Copy of news and advertisements published in the national
Dailies claiming that M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. shall pay an
interest at 24% p.a. downloaded from website of ‘Business standard’
2. Copy of Motor Insurance Claim Process of Bajaj Allianz.
3. Copy of Motor Insurance Renewal Policy Form’ by Bajaj Allianz.
4. Survey Report by Govt. Regd. Valuer, for the damages to car
5. Present market value report by Govt. Regd.Valuer for car.
After hearing both sides , the petition was allowed andf the documents were marked as Exs.A11 to A15.
Heard both sides and perused the entire material on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is an admitted fact that the complainant booked a Maruthi Swift Vdi Car with ABS ( Anti Skid Breaking System) with opposite party no.3, Naidu Motors Ltd. by paying Rs.3 lakhs as an advance on 6.9.2008, on the assurance that the car would be delivered on 19.9.2008. Ex.A1 receipt dt.6.9.2008 towards payment of Rs.3,00,000/- by the complainant to opposite party no.3 proved the above fact. Infact though opposite party no.3 received the notice in the complaint from the District Forum, it did not choose to contest the case, either before the District Forum or before this Commission. Opposite party no.2 also did not dispute the above facts. Admittedly, the opposite party no.3 did not deliver the car to the complainant on 19.9.2008 as assured by him.
The contention of the complainant is that as the opposite party no.3 did not deliver the car even by November,2008 she approached the Regional Manager of opposite party no.1 and on their advise, opposite party no.2 called her to take delivery of the car on 29.12.2008. She deposited Rs.1 lakh with opposite party no.2 on 29.12.2008 and paid balance amount of Rs.1,79,063/- on 2.1.2009 and took delivery of the car. This case of the complainant was not denied by opposite party no.2 and admitted in its written version at page 7 that opposite party no.3 requested them to deliver the vehicle to the complainant . It is the case of the complainant that the car was delivered to them with only delivery challan and insurance documents , saying that their invoice and balance documents would be released to them within 3 to 4 days time, after receipt of the advance amount of Rs.3 lakhs paid by the complainant from opposite party no.3 Naidu Motors. The Sales Manager of M/s. RKS.Motors Pvt.Ltd. had told that the invoice would be dated 31.12.2008, though the balance payment and the delivery of the vehicle actually took place on 2.1.2009. But the opposite party no.2 did not deliver the balance documents as assured , though she approached opposite parties 1 and 2 several times. Finally the opposite party no.2 told that they received the payment from opposite party no.3 towards the end of February,2008 and demanded to pay Rs.7,545/- towards interest for that delay.
On the other hand, the case of the opposite party no.2 is that opposite party no.3 made a cheque payment of Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.2.2009, which was credited to the account of opposite party no.2 only on 28.2.2009 . Thereafter, opposite party no.2 has given number of reminders to the complainant to collect the documents from them after paying the interest amount of Rs.7,545/- .Therefore, they are not responsible for the delay in returning the documents to the complainant.
As stated above, in the written version , evidence affidavit and written arguments filed by opposite party no.2, it has been categorically stated that on the request of the opposite party no.3 Naidu Motors Ltd., it delivered the vehicle to the complainant. The contention of the complainant is that the invoice delivered to them by opposite party no.2 , through the District Forum on 22.12.2010, which is almost two years after delivery of the car as per the directions of the District Forum. Now it is to be seen whether the opposite party is justified in withholding the documents pertaining to the complainant’s car. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party no.2 after collecting Rs.2,79,063/-, towards balance cost of the car, delivered the car, but the documents are not delivered to the complainant and the opposite party no.2 delivered the documents to the complainant as per the directions of the District Forum, about two years after the car was delivered. The reasons given by opposite party no.2, for the delay in delivery of the documents to the complainant are that opposite party no.2 received payment of Rs.3,00,000/- only in the month of February,2009 and non payment of interest of Rs.7,545/- for the delayed receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- from opposite party no.3. As stated above, only at the request of opposite party no.3, opposite party no.2 delivered the car to the complainant after receiving the balance amount and not at the request of the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant paid entire amount and took delivery of the car. The complainant is not responsible for the delay in receipt of the amount of Rs.3 lakhs from the opposite party no.3, by opposite party no.2. The complainant is not at all responsible for the said delay. It is the matter between opposite parties 2 and 3 and the complainant has nothing to do with that. Therefore, in our considered view, the complainant is not liable to pay any interest, much less Rs.7,545/- to opposite party no.2. As such, opposite party no.2 is not justified in withholding the documents pertaining to the complainant’s car.
The case of opposite party no.2 is that when the complainant paid Rs.1 lakh on 31.12.2008 and promised to pay the balance amount within a couple of hours on the same day, the opposite party no.2 prepared tax invoice . Once the invoice was prepared, the same cannot be subsequently altered. Once the invoice is blocked into the system , it cannot be changed again, since the same will be automatically updated in the records of opposite party no.1 and the records of RTA. On the other hand, the contention of the complainant is that at the time of making balance payment, opposite party no.2 did not inform them that the invoice would be dt.31.12.2008. On noticing that the ordering date and allotment date mentioned on the delivery challan, opposite party no.2 had handed over to them were mentioned as 31.12.2008, while the date of delivery was mentioned as 2.1.2009, they got a doubt and clarified with them. At that point of time, they told them that the invoice would be dt.31.12.2008. From the above contention of the complainant, it is evident that the complainant has denied the case of the opposite party no.2 that when the complainant paid Rs.1 lakh on 31.12.2008 and promised to pay the balance amount within couple of hours on the same day, the opposite party no.2 prepared the invoice. The complainant has categorically stated that preparation of invoice on 31.12.2008 was not informed to the complainant, before receiving the balance payment in cash. Except the interested version of opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.2 did not adduce evidence to prove the said fact. Had the opposite party no.2 informed the complainant before she had made the balance payments, she would have got the issue resolved before making the balance payments. The opposite party no.2 ought to have waited till the balance payment was made, instead of preparing the tax invoice in advance before the payment. As a result of the act of opposite party no.2, in preparing the tax invoice, in advance, on 31.12.2008, caused excessive revelation of the car at the time of sale. The contention of the complainant is that registering the car with back dated invoice would cause irreversible additional depreciation of resale value of the car. Due to this, they have waited for the orders.
For the afore said facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 2 and 3. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, and the documents filed by the complainant, the complainant has suffered inconvenience and harassment due to delay in delivery of the vehicle by opposite party no.3. That the balance documents had not been released to the complainant, by the opp.parties 2 and 3, for more than a year after having received full payments from the complainant, due to which, the complainant did not get her vehicle registered. Even after the documents have been delivered to the complainant, the complainant is not able to proceed with the registration as the invoice is wrongly dt.31.12.2008, in the place of 02.01.2009. Therefore, in our considered view, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the District Forum is not sufficient and it has to be enhanced to Rs.1 lakh.
F.A.No.609/12: Appeal F.A.No.609/2012 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.no.610/2012: Appeal F.A.No.610/2012 is allowed in part. The respondents 2 and 3/opp.parties 2 and 3 are directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (including Rs.50,000/- awarded by the District Forum) to the complainant towards compensation. The order of the District Forum is modified accordingly. The order of the District Forum, so far as it relates to costs of Rs.2000/- and dismissal of the complaint against opposite party no.1 is retained. The respondents herein are directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the appellant/complainant towards costs of this appeal.
The respondents 2 and 3/opp.parties 2 and 3 are directed to comply with the order within four weeks from the date of receipt this order.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Pm* Dt. 28.6.2013
