Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/538/2012

S. RAMANATHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

CAI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

P. ARUMUGARAJAN

05 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE        Thiru. J.JAYARAM                  PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                 MEMBER

F.A.NO. 538/2012

[Against the Order in  C.O.P No.251/2010 dated 28.4.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore]

DATED THIS THE 5^th   DAY OF MAY 2015

S.Ramanathan

S/o.K.Subramaniam

Old No.5D, New No.12

Sardar Street,

Udumalpet                                           ..Appellant/complainant

                                    Vs

1.M/s CAI Industries Limited

Rep.by Director,

No. 1547 A, Avanashi Road,

Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004 

 

2. M/s Mahendra & Mahendra (P) Ltd,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

Automotive Division, Gateway Building,

Apollo Bundor, Nariman point,

Mumbai 400 001                                   ..Respondent/opp.party

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant    : M/s P.Arumugarajan

Counsel for 1^st Respondent/1^st opp.party :  M/s B.L.Lavanya

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent/2^nd opp.party  : M/s Y.Prakash

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 19.3.2015 and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.

                        ORDER

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.         This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in C.C.251/2010 dated 28.4.2011 dismissing the complaint.

2.          The case of the complainant is that he placed an order for supply of a Mahindra Maxx BS2/6 STR with the 1^st opposite party who is the dealer and the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer, on 23.10.2009, on payment of  advance of Rs.25,000/- against the cost of Rs.5,22,263/-. The 1^st opposite party assured that the car would be delivered within 8 weeks. The opposite parties  delayed delivery of the car inspite of contacting the 1^st opposite party over phone and also in person several times. The complainant had taken  demand draft of State Bank of India for Rs. 4,97,042/- dated 29.12.2009 and though he was keeping the demand draft ready for the balance amount, the 1^st opposite party did not deliver the vehicle as promised and the inordinate delay on the part of the opposite parties caused mental agony, harassment and financial loss and therefore he was forced to cancel this order for supply of the car vide its letter dated 1.2.2010. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.         Further in the cheque issued by the opposite parties for refund of the advance amount, the name was deliberately noted as K.Ramanathan instead of the correct name of the complainant i.e., S.Ramanathan, and this amounts to further deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4.      Hence the complaint, praying for direction to the  opposite parties to refund the advance amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the complainant with the 1^st opposite party on 23.10.2009 towards interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs. 7,185/- towards the bank interest and pre-payment charges paid by the complainant to the State Bank of India and to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony, financial loss, embarrassment caused to the complainant by the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-.

5.            According to the opposite parties, there was no time limit prescribed for delivery of the vehicle and they did not give any assurance to the complainant that the vehicle would be delivered within 8 weeks as contended by the complainant and the fact remains that the complainant wanted to arrange three or four vehicles, so that he could choose any one of them by choice and they could not arrange three or four vehicles together at a time as wanted by the complainant. When the facts are so, the complainant suddenly cancelled the booking of the vehicle on 1.2.2010 without giving any notice and therefore they sent a letter to the complainant dated 12.2.2010, enclosing therewith a cheque dated 10.2.2010 for Rs. 25,000/- towards refund of the advance received by them. The cheque was issued in favour of the complainant, but due to oversight, the cheque was issued in the name of K.Ramanathan instead of S.Ramanathan, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

6.      The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint, holding that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

7.         Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has preferred the appeal.

8.      The 1^st contention of the appellant/complainant is that the 1^st opposite party promised to deliver the vehicle within 8 weeks from the date of booking and on the promise made by the 1^st opposite party, he paid advance of Rs.25,000/-  and that the car was not delivered within the period.

9.      Per contra, the opposite parties would contend that no time schedule was promised and the complainant was insisting on choosing one among 3 or 4 vehicles together at a time and the complainant did not come forward to take the vehicle.

10.        As pointed out by the District Forum, in the quotation under Ex.A.1, issued by the dealer/1^st opposite party to the complainant, dated 14.9.2009 it is stated as,  “Delivery period: As and when available”. Further in Ex.A.2, which is the vehicle order taking form, the tentative delivery date is left blank. On considering these we have to accept the contention of the 1^st opposite party that no time schedule was promised by them. The 1^st opposite party did not  deliver of the car in time and the complainant was constrained to cancel his booking on 1.2.2010 without sending notice prior to cancellation of the order. We hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in this regard.

 

11.        The further contention of the complainant would be that the cheque for the advance amount of Rs.25,000/- sent by the 1^st opposite party was wrongly issued in favour of K.Ramanathan instead of his correct name S.Ramanathan and it was deliberately done so for harassing the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the booking receipt issued to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party was in the name of K.Ramanathan which is a typographical error and the complainant did not verify the same and so in the cheque, the error crept in and they did not do so deliberately and they apologized to the complainant. Therefore we hold that there is no deficiency in service in this regard.

12.      On perusal of the quotation, Ex.A.1, we find a clause stating that no interest would be paid for the advance amount and therefore we hold that the complainant is not entitled to claim interest from the opposite parties for the advance amount.  

13.         On considering the entire materials on record, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

14.       The District Forum has come to the right conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the District Forum  has rightly dismissed the complaint. There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the finding and the decision of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.

15.       There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

 

                In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint.

 

                 No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

  P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                        J. JAYARAM                    

        MEMBER                                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER