KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 715/2006

JUDGMENT DATED: 14.10.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                        : MEMBER

Indus Motor Company Private Limited,        : APPELLANT

Opp. South Gate of Cochin Shipyard,

M.G.Road, Kochi – 682015,

Rep. By power of attorney holder,

M.A.Thomas, S/o Abraham,

Residing at 4 TCC Colony,

Udhyogamandal, P.O.Ernakulam.

(By Adv.Biju.M.John)

       Vs.

1.Anish Jacob,                                             : RESPONDENTS

   Chalumkal House,

   Manippara.P.O.,

   Karimban, Idukki District.

2. Maruthi Udyog Ltd.,

    2^nd Floor, Jeeven Prakash,

    25, Kasthurba Gandhi Marg,

     New Delhi – 110 001.

(By Adv.K.L.Narasimhan, counsel for R2)

JUDGMENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA     : MEMBER

          This appeal preferred from the order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in the file of CC.No.46/06 order dated 10.8.06.  The appellant is the 1^st opposite party and the respondents are the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party respectively.

          2. The brief of the complaint is that, he purchased a Euro III Zen LX car from the 1^st opposite party who arranged sales promotion fare in front of Pappen’s restorant at Cheruthoni.  The  complainant went to the fair and he booked the above mentioned car and paid Rs.1000/- as advance on 26.8.05 at the time of booking of the vehicle the opposite party offered one year free insurance, a gift cheque of Rs.10000/- against a stereo worth Rs.5000/- and agreed to deliver the vehicle for Rs.3,43,459/- within 2 days of the payment of full amount.  On 30.8.05 complainant arranged a loan from Mahindra Finance and paid to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties assured the complainant that the vehicle would be delivered within a week of time.  But the opposite party delivered the vehicle only on 29.10.05 and charged additional Rs.1100/- excessively.  The gift cheque of Rs.10000/- was reduced to 5000/-.  The alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties, the complaint has been filed for compensation to the tune of Rs.52,500/-.

          3. In the version the opposite parties contended that the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition since no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Forum below as per the Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act..  The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant has booked EurO III Zen LX already paid a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- by arranging loan from Mahinda finace on 31.8.05.  The said vehicle was not available in their stock, but the complainant was not willing to change the vehicle.  The complainant has paid entire amount of the vehicle on 31.10.05 and he was entitled to get the offers available only at the time of making full payment of the vehicle.  The 1^st opposite party on receipt of the documents from the complainant had forwarded the same to M/s Maruti Udyog Limited, the manufacturer of the car.  There was absolutely no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  The opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation. 

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 on the side of the complainant.  The forum below discussed the points that are 1) Whether the Forum below has jurisdiction to entertain the petition as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2) If complaint is maintainable whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief complainant is entitled to?

          5. The Forum below after heard the parties and discussed the entire evidence and ordered that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.25000/- by way of compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.1500/- as costs to the petition within a period of 30 days, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default.

          6. On this date this appeal came before this Commission; both the counsel for the appellant and the respondents appeared and argued their own respective cases in detail.  The learned counsel appeared for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the Forum below failed to appreciate  a very important point that the appellant is only liable for the deficiency in service if the complainant paid the entire amount within the stipulated time and neverthless he have no right to rise such a claim from the opposite parties and he also submitted that the complainant reluctant to take the delivery of the vehicle offered by them instead of the booked vehicle another model. But the learned counsel for the respondents/ complainant argued that they written to the complainant that the subsequent amount only need to pay at the time of delivery of the vehicle.

          This Commission heard both sides in detail and perused the entire evidence on the case records and seeing that the appellant admitted all the allegations raised in the complaint by the complainant in their version.  In the fact and the circumstances of this case this Commission is seeing any error in the order passed by the Forum below.  Hence we uphold the order passed by the Forum below.  In the result this appeal is dismissed and directed both parties to suffer their own dhasti.  The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.

          SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                        : MEMBER

          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

Ps