DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 5^th day of May, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

            : Smt.Vidya A., Member           

            : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member         Date of filing 01/01/2020      

CC/1/2020

K.P.Ramankutty

S/o Balakrishnan Menon

Souparnika, Yamaha Nagar

Dhoni, Palakkad                                                     -         Complainant

(By Adv. P.Sreeprakash)

Vs

1.   ALY TATA

      HO Continental Bi-Wheelers (P) Ltd.

      Milma Plaza, 2^nd Mile

Kallekkad, Palakkad

2.   TATA Motors Ltd.

2^nd Floor, Fortune Summit

#224 HSR Layout, 6^th Phase

Bangalore – 560 102                                               -        Opposite party

(Both opposite parties Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.

1.  Pleadings of the Complainant.

The complainant booked a TATA TIAGO-XZ+(P) car on 10/05/2019 with the 1^st opposite party by paying Rs. 6,000/- as advance.  The 1^st opposite party had promised that the vehicle will be delivered within 20 days i.e. on 30/05/2019.  He also made arrangement for a loan of Rs. 5,17,785/-  from Bank @ 10.85% per annum and paid to the 1^st opposite party on 30/05/2019.  The 1^st opposite party failed to make the delivery of the car even after 2 months.  Hence decided to cancel the order and for getting back the amount already paid, he had to file a complaint with local police station.  The loan liability was cleared by the 1^st opposite party only after 5 months.  The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties seeking a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the difficulties he had to face due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party.  Since the opposite parties did not respond to this lawyer notice he approached this Commission seeking a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- apart from cost.

2.   Notices were issued to opposite parties.  The 2^nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  Notice to the 1^st opposite party got returned with endorsement “Left”.  Since the complainant failed to collect the correct address of the 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party was directed by this Commission to furnish the same vide order dated 20/02/2021 against the IA No. 4/21 filed by the complainant.  As the 2^nd opposite party did not provide the address as ordered, paper publication was issued against 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte as they did not enter appearance even after the paper publication.

          The main contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that they should not have been made a party to this case, as the complainant has no case that there has been any deficiency in service on their part.  Their relationship with 1^st opposite party is that of “Principal to Principal” and hence no way liable for the dealings of the 1^st opposite party with the complainant.  Since the 2^nd opposite party was continuously absent during the proceedings, their name was called in open court and was set ex-parte.

3.   Following are the issues involved in this case

1. Whether the complaint is bad for the misjoinder of unnecessary parties?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not effecting the delivery of vehicle in time?
3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.

4.   The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to A4 as evidence.  A1 is the journal voucher for Rs. 5,17,785/- dated 30/05/2019 being the amount paid by the complainant, A2 is the Bank receipt sales voucher dated 10/05/2019 for Rs. 6,000/- (Advance payment).  A3 is the letter dated 26/06/2019 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant apologising for the inconvenience caused and conforming that the vehicle would be delivered on 07/07/2019.  A4 is the lawyer notice issued to opposite parties dated 20/07/2019 by Adv. P.Sreeprakash on behalf of the complainant along with acknowledgement duly signed by the opposite parties.

5.   The following gives the chronology of events in the transaction between the complainant and 1^st opposite party.

6.  Issue No: 1

      The contention of 2^nd opposite party is that they are in no way responsible for the dealings of the complainant with the 1^st opposite party as their relationship with 1^st opposite party is only “Principal to Principal” basis and hence should not have been impleaded as an opposite party.  Though the 2^nd opposite party is not directly responsible for the dealings of the 1^st opposite party with their clients, it is pertinent to note that the consumers approach a TATA Dealer because of their faith and confidence in Brand and a highly reputed corporate like TATA is believed to appoint their dealers after the process of due diligence and ascertaining their track records, credit worthiness, etc. and cancel the dealership in case of any unfair practices on their part.  As any misdeeds of the dealers, directly affect the credibility and trustworthiness of the Brand, the 2^nd opposite party is expected to ensure that their dealer like 1^st opposite party do their dealing in a very transparent and trustful manner.  Hence this complaint is not bad for misjoinder of unnecessary parties.

7.  Issue No: 2

      From the chronology of events in the dealing between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party it is clear that the 1^st opposite party has failed in their promise to deliver the vehicle.  The payment of Rs. 5,17,785/- on 30/05/2019 by way of loan arranged is a clear indication to the fact that they had promised to deliver the car on that date as mentioned in the pleadings of the complainant.  Further the letter dated 26/06/2019 written by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant is an evidence to the fact that they could not deliver the vehicle as promised and again confirming that the delivery would happen on 07/07/2019.  Further the delivery was not made even after receiving the lawyer notice from the complainant.  The refund and closure of the loan was made only in October after the intervention of local police.  Hence this is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

8.  Issue No: 3

      From the narration given above, it is clear that there was deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get compensation.  Now the question is “who has to pay the compensation, 1^st or 2^nd opposite party”?

          As explained earlier, though the dealings of the complainant was with the 1^st opposite party, the complainant dealt with them only because they are dealers of the reputed Brand “TATA” and hence 2^nd opposite party cannot escape from their responsibility to the consumers approaching their dealers seeing the brand name.  Hence 2^nd opposite party is also to be held responsible to the misdeeds of the 1^st opposite party.

9.  Issue No: 4

      In the result, the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay jointly and severally Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and
2. Rs. 25,000/- as cost.

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 500/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in open court on this the 5^th day of May, 2023.

                                                                                               Sd/-          

                                                                            Vinay Menon V

                                                     President 

                                                              Sd/-

                                                      Vidya A

                                Member 

                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                  Krishnankutty.N.K.

                                                                                         Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1: Journal voucher for Rs. 5,17,785/- dated 30/05/2019.

Ext. A2: Bank receipt sales voucher dated 10/05/2019 for Rs. 6,000/-

             (Advance payment).

Ext. A3: Letter dated 26/06/2019 issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ext. A4: Lawyer notice issued to opposite parties dated 20/07/2019.

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined: Nil

Cost: Rs. 25,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.