By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

1.The complaint in short is as follows: -

      The complainant is the Manager of Ali-Irshad English school Cherukulamba,Vattalllur, Malappuram. The  State Government introduced  strict guide lines  regarding the  use of school buses  and so the buses  owned by the  complainant  was not  eligible to ply on the Road. So, the parent teachers association decided to purchase five new school buses through contribution. The complainant contacted the opposite party and the opposite party agreed to deliver the buses and also agreed to finance through Sundaram Finance. The complainant signed booking form on 24/05/2018 and it was agreed to deliver the buses on 28/05/2018. On 28/05/2018 the complainant was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- and also directed to sign all records for granting loan.  The complainant contented that the opposite party promised to deliver buses on 20/05/2018 (?) before reopening on 02/06/2018.  The complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- on 28/05/2018 and documents also signed including unfilled forms, vouchers, agreements etc.  The complainant was forced to sign in the records since the buses should be ready by 02/06/2018. On 30/05/2018, the opposite party delivered only one bus. Since absence of bus, school opening was adjourned to 12/06/2018 and the complainant had assured that the opposite party will deliver bus within days. Thereafter due to want of response from the opposite party, the complainant used to visit the show room of the opposite party since the complainant was answerable to the Parent Teachers Association and other persons who contributed towards purchase of the vehicle.  Thereafter three buses also delivered to the complainant. The assurance was the last bus will be delivered before 12/06/2018.  The complainant believed the same. 

2.        The complainant had availed loan at flat rate of interest and the first instalment was already paid towards the loan.  On 28/05/2018 itself the entire amount of buses were paid to the opposite party and so the complainant was bound to pay instalments duly. Virtually without delivering the buses the complainant was compelled to pay the loan instalments, that to be procured from students.  The complainant arranged other vehicle to take the children to school and back by spending more than Rs.10,000/- per day from 12/06/2018 onwards. The complainant had paid entire amount of Rs. 17,60,000/- to the opposite party towards the price of the vehicles.  The complainant paid the amount to the opposite party because they stated that they are having ready buses. The complainant approached the opposite party for having effective service, avoiding other manufactures like TATA etc are having ready buses. 

3.       Due to the act of the opposite party the complainant was put to suffer irreparable loss and hard ships that is due to non-delivery of the bus.  Hence this complaint is filed seeking compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party with cost of the proceedings.

4.        On admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed version.

5.       The contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The contention is that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The opposite party do not dispute that the complainant is the Manager of the school and had placed orders with the opposite party for purchase of five buses and the dispute is with regard to non-delivery of one bus booked by the complainant.   The opposite party contented that all these buses are admittedly being operated as school bus, engaging paid drivers for transporting the students of the school, of which the complainant is stated to be the Manager.  The opposite party understand that bus fee is being collected from the students availing the facility of the school buses and so the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer under the Act.

6.         The opposite party also submitted that, they are only dealers of the vehicle and so they are unnecessary party to the proceedings.  The opposite party is able to deliver bus to a customer only on receipt of the same from the manufacturer. So, the proper proceedings are to be initiated incorporating the manufacturer and so the complaint is hit by non-joinder of necessary party and mis-joinder of un necessary party. 

7.        It is admitted that the complainant had placed orders for purchase of five buses on 24/05/2018 manufactured by M/s Ashoka Leyland Limited.  The complainant duly signed an order booking form and it was issued to the complainant. The booking form specifically stated that the approximate date of delivery of all the chassis was two to four weeks.  It had been further specified in the order booking form that the booking was subject to the conditions prescribed therein.    The complainant had placed the order for the five buses and signed the order booking form of his own volition after  going through the conditions and being convinced of the same. 

8.     The opposite party on receipt of four vehicles from the manufacturer had made available to the complainant i.e. two buses on 11/06/2018 and two buses on 14/6/2018, which is within four weeks period stipulated in the order booking form.  The opposite party submit that the complainant had further been informed that the fifth vehicle would be received from the manufacturer in due course and would be delivered to him at the earliest.   There was delay in receipt of the fifth bus from the manufacturer, which was beyond the control of the opposite party and on receipt of the vehicle in July 2018 informed the complainant of the same telephonically and in writing as per letter dated 13/07/2018 and the complainant was requested to take delivery of the vehicle.  The complainant in spite of receipt of the said letter for reasons best known to him not taken delivery of the vehicle.   The opposite party denied all the allegations raised in the complaint contra to the above facts.  The opposite party submit that all the allegations of the complainant regarding deficiency in service, mischiefs, fraud and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party is without any bonafides and with ulterior motives.  The submission of the opposite party is   that in no way the opposite party is liable or responsible to compensate the complainant and complainant is not entitled any relief either under law or on facts and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

9.     The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A3.Ext. A1 is Order form dated 28/05/2018, Ext. A2 is order form dated 24/05/2018, Ext. A3 series 17pages is tax invoice dated 30/09/2018 for Rs. 1628389.00 and incidental papers. Opposite party did not produce any document.

10.    Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit and documents. The following issues are to be considered to arrive a decision in this complaint.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable ?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
3. Reliefs and cost?

11. Point No.1 to 3

            The case of the complaint is that he is School Manager and the school is functioning in charity way and for the strict obeyance of Government orders, decided to purchase five vehicles through raising contributions from the parents.  The opposite party contented that, the school buses are plying after availing service of drivers on payment.  In short, the plying of vehicle by the complainant involves commercial purpose and so the complaint is not maintainable. But we do not find  merit in the contention  since  plying school buses is not  for a commercial purpose  but  for the convenience of students  and that too  is arranged by  contribution  from the  charity minded people and so we find  the first point  in favour of the complainant.

12.          The grievance of the complainant here in is the delay in delivery of the vehicle.

The contention of the complainant is that the opposite party had agreed to deliver the buses on 02/06/2018 and later it was agreed to deliver on 12/06/2018. The contention of the opposite party is that they are dealers only and on supply of vehicles by the manufactures, they can issue vehicles to customers. Ext. A1 is copy of order form produced by complainant.  The 7^th condition in A1 document is that the delivery of chassis will be within 4 to 6 weeks.  There are no other documents to show that the opposite party had agreed to deliver the same earlier as stated by the complainant.  The opposite party submitted that two vehicles were delivered on 11/06/2018 and another two vehicles were delivered on 14/06/2018.The complainant does not dispute the same.  So, it can be seen that four vehicles have delivered as per terms of Ext. A1 document.  Now the question is delay in delivery of 5^th vehicle as demanded in Ext. A1 document.  The opposite party submitted that they received chassis of 5^thvehicle from the manufacturer in the month of July and it was telephonically informed to the complainant also. The opposite party also submitted that the same was intimated the complainant through a letter.  But the opposite party has not produced any document to show that the 5^th vehicle was ready with them as stated.  The opposite party has not produced any document to show the bonafides in the submission of the opposite party.  It can be seen that as per Ext. A3, the complainant had purchased another vehicle on 30/09/2018 with chassis No. MAT 505221JFF12420, which shows the complainant, was actually in need of 5^th vehicle.  Even though he had booked five vehicles before the opposite party, they could deliver only four vehicles and that too with slight delay as contented by the complainant. Since there is a condition in Ext. A1 regarding the delivery period, we do not find it as a default on the part of opposite party.  But the case with respect to 5^th vehicle is concerned is a different.  We find there is delay on the part of the opposite party and they could not deliver the 5^th vehicle to the complainant in due time.  There is no evidence to show the bonafides of the opposite parties that they were received chassis   for the 5^th vehicle from the manufacturer. Hence it will not be proper to   hold  that  the manufacturer  delivered the chassis  of the 5^th vehicle  with delay  and on receipt of the  chassis  the opposite party  intimated the same  to the complainant.  In the absence of evidence on the part of the opposite party we hold that the opposite party failed to deliver the 5^th vehicle to the complainant as per Ext. A1 document and so there is deficiency on the part of opposite party.

13.         The complainant submitted that the loan was availed for the purchase of school vehicles and due to delay in delivery of vehicles by the opposite party resulted huge financial burden on the complainant and so he claimed Rs. 12,00,000/- as compensation.   But the complainant failed to establish the exact extend of financial loss sustained by him.  Moreover, we find a fabulous amount has been claimed as compensation which he does not entitled. It is the fact that the complainant was in need of 5buses for the proper functioning of the school, providing travelling facility to the students of the institutions. The submission of the complainant is that they were compelled to avail special conveyance spending Rs. 10,000/- per day for the same.  But the complainant could not produce any document to establish the same.  So, the Commission is not inclined to allow any amount on that count.  But the fact is brought out from the affidavits and documents that the complainant suffered lot of inconvenience and hard ships due to the deficiency in service of opposite party.  Hence, we consider Rs. 50,000/- as reasonable amount as compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and thereby caused in convenience and hardships to the complainant. We also allow Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

14.    In the light of above facts and circumstances, we partly allow this complaint as follows: -

1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

            The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the entire amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

Dated this 1^stday of August., 2022.

MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C. V, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant               :Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant             : Ext.A1to A3

Ext. A1 :Order form dated 28/05/2018.

Ext. A2 :Order form dated 24/5/2018.

Ext.A3 : Series 17 pages  tax invoice  dated 30/09/2018 for Rs.1628389.00 and incidental

               papers.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party           :Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party          :Nil

MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER