BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  :  MEMBER

C.C. No. 574/2015 Filed on 28.11.2015

ORDER DATED: 30.06.2017

Complainant:

P. Praveena Kumari, Sai Kripa,K.P II/1067-B, Opp: Jyothis School, Kazhakuttom, Kazhakuttom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 582.

                                  (Party in person)                                    

Opposite parties:

1. CBC Honda, T.C No. 2/1415, Opposite Milma, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram -695 004.
2. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Commercial Complex II, Sector 49-50, Golf Course Extension Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 018.

                (By Adv. Prabhu Vijayakumar for 1^st & 2^nd O.P)

3. Regional Transport Commissioner, Transport Commissionerate, Trans Towers, 2^nd Floor, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.

This case having been heard on 05.06.2017, the Forum on 30.06.2017 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. P. SUDHIR:  PRESIDENT

Complainant’s case is that complainant booked Activa 3G Scooter on 30.05.2015 with 1^st opposite party and paid Rs. 1,000/- as advance and balance amount to be paid at the time of delivery.  On 04.06.2015 an executive of the 1^st opposite party requested for payment and the vehicle would be delivered in 4 days.  In good faith complainant paid Rs. 56,530/- to the executive by way of cheque.  The cheque was encashed by the 1^st opposite party.  Logistic charges Rs. 1,750/- was included in the estimation cost of the vehicle.  Complainant from the web site of the 2^nd opposite party found that the on road price was different from the one that was given to the complainant.  Executive of the customer care centre of 2^nd opposite party informed that 1^st opposite party has to charge only on road price from the prospective buyer and the complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to deliver the vehicle at ex-showroom price and complainant will deal with other formalities.  On communication with the 1^st opposite party they expressed their inability to sell at ex-showroom price.  After communication made with the issue complainant received an e-mail from 1^st opposite party that they cannot deliver the vehicle without registration.  1^st opposite party is collecting charges for temporary registration and permanent registration.  On enquiry with 3^rd opposite party they said only permanent registration is necessary and temporary registration is required only if customers wants a desired number.  After required communication on 15.09.2015 1^st opposite party called the complainant and informed that they are willing to give the vehicle at ex-showroom price.  On 26.09.2015 complainant received a registered post from the 1^st opposite party stating that they have cancelled the booking and ready for refund.  Complainant sent e-mail to 1^st opposite party to get the amount with interest at the rate of 2% per month and 1^st opposite party not paid the demanded amount and complainant approached this Forum for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the mental and physical agony and refund of Rs. 57,530/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 5^th June 2015 from the 1^st opposite party. 

Notice sent to opposite parties and opposite parties 1 to 3 filed version. 

The contention taken by 1^st opposite party is that complainant had booked a Honda Activa 3 G Scooter from 1^st opposite party on 31.05.2015 by paying a booking amount of Rs. 1,000/- vide booking form No. 5438.  The complainant had given a cheque for Rs. 56,530/- on 04.05.2015.  The 1^st opposite party had made arrangements to register the vehicle in the name of the complainant and deliver the vehicle as promised and on time.  But the complainant came up with demand saying that the vehicle was to be delivered to her without registering the same and she would do the registration.  Further she also wanted the vehicle to be given to her in the ex-showroom price.  The 1^st opposite party had expressed their inability to accede to her demands since the vehicle could not be delivered to the customer without registering the same before the concerned RTO.  The complainant was not willing to compromise on her stand for reasons best known to her alone.  She had made complaints to the 2^nd opposite party regarding her demands and also claiming that 1^st opposite party was charging more amount from her than the original sale price of the vehicle.  Since the vehicle price is fixed by the manufacturer and 1^st opposite party has no say in the same, her complaint was found to be frivolous by the manufacturer (2^nd opposite party) also.  In response to the complainant’s mail, 1^st opposite party had expressed their inability to deliver the vehicle without registration on 03.07.2015 and finally on 10.07.2015 itself.  Since there was no response from the complainant, 1^st opposite party had sent another mail dated 18.09.2015 informing her that since she was not interested delivery of the vehicle, they are proceeding with the cancellation of the booking.  This mail was sent since the executive from their showroom had gone to collect the original documents from the complainant to proceed with the cancellation process but the complainant had refused to co-operate.  As per the word given by them, 1^st opposite party had effected cancellation of the booking and had informed the complainant come and collect the cheque towards the amount paid by her.  But the complainant refused accept payment and had demanded a huge amount as compensation from them.  The amount is still kept ready for returning to the complainant and she has not collected the same from them for reasons best known to her and has resorted to filing this complaint.  As evident from the aforesaid facts it is clear that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service from the part of 1^st opposite party.  It is only the adamant stand of the complainant without any logical reasons that resulted in the events which unfolded after the booking on 31.05.2015.  The 1^st opposite party had performed their part by keeping the vehicle ready, available and had started all the paper work for the registration and they could have registered and delivered the vehicle in time to the complainant if not for the complainant’s unreasonable demands and illogical stand.  No mental agony or stress was created on the complainant due to any action from their part but on the other hand it is the complainant who had caused severe stress, tension and troubles for the 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party had always responded to the complainant but they could not adhere to the unreasonable and illogical demands of the complainant since the vehicle could not be delivered without registration as per the policy of the RTO prevailing at the time.  In the light of the afore submitted facts it is crystal clear and evident that there was nothing, from the part of 1^st opposite party to attract any of the offences described in Consumer Protection Act.  1^st opposite party has not committed any act to attract any offence under Consumer protection Act and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of 1^st opposite party.  The complainant is solely responsible for the delay and events pursuant to it as evident from the afore submitted facts.  This 1^st opposite party is not at all liable for any of the reliefs claimed by the complainant in the complaint.  There is no negligence or undue delay from the part of the 1^st opposite party attracting deficiency of service as claimed by the complainant.  No inconvenience or loss was caused to the complainant due to any act or omission from the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence 1^st opposite party is in no way liable to compensate the complainant on any count. 

2^nd opposite party filed version contending as follows: 1^st opposite party is one of the dealers of 2^nd opposite party in Thiruvananthapuram.  Regarding the rest of the averments, the same is not within the knowledge of 2^nd opposite party.  The ex-showroom price of all the vehicles produced by the 2^nd opposite party will be the same except for the state wise taxes and the transportation charges which will be added to the ex-showroom price.  But there will not be a radical difference as claimed and alleged by the complainant.  The on road price of the vehicle will be different from state to state since the road tax and other taxes will differ from state to state.  She was specifically told by 2^nd opposite party’s customer care executive that 1^st opposite party can only charge the on road price from the buyer.  It is submitted that all over India it is a legal practice to register the vehicle before delivering the vehicle to the customer since nobody is allowed to ply an unregistered vehicle on the road as per the law.  Even though all these in transactions took place between the 1^st opposite party and the complainant, the 1^st opposite party dealer is not legally allowed to deliver an unregistered vehicle to the customer.  2^nd opposite party and their customer care department had always promptly and diligently replied to the complainant’s calls and emails and hence no deficiency in service can be attributed or fastened on them.  The said fact is further more made clear by the complainant’s own admission that the authorized person from 2^nd opposite party’s legal department, Mr. Manikantan had personally called the complainant and thereafter the 1^st opposite party had agreed to either return the money or deliver the vehicle at ex-showroom price.  But as far as the knowledge of 2^nd opposite party goes, the complainant was not willing for both and had instead preferred to initiate this complaint before this Forum.  As afore submitted the tussle and tug of war is between the complainant and 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party is roped in without any bonafide reasons as evident from the afore submitted facts.  2^nd opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and had always promptly, responsibly and diligently replied to the calls and mails of the complainant and was always trying to sort out the issue even going by the complainant’s own pleadings and admissions in the complaint.  So even going by the admissions of the complainant, 2^nd opposite party cannot be held liable in any manner in this issue.  Further no deficiency in service can be attributed to 2^nd opposite party since the complainant herself has admitted that her calls and mails were promptly replied and further their representative from the legal department had also personally called her and heard her complaints.  No specific relief is sought against 2^nd opposite party and as afore submitted, the complainant has arrayed this 2^nd opposite party without any bonafides or any cause of action.  2^nd opposite party has not committed any act to attract any offence under Consumer Protection Act and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of 2^nd opposite party.  2^nd opposite party is not at all liable for any of the reliefs claimed by the complainant in the complaint.  There is no negligence or undue delay from the part of 2^nd opposite party attracting deficiency of service.  No inconvenience or loss was caused to the complainant due to any act or omission from the part of 2^nd opposite party and hence 2^nd opposite party is in no way liable to compensate the complainant on any count.   

3^rd opposite party filed version stating that the complainant has not made any allegation against this opposite party.  Motor Vehicles Department has taken every possible step to stop vehicle dealers from collecting huge amounts from the vehicle purchasers in the name of logistic charges, handling charges, service charges etc.  In this connection, 3^rd opposite party issued strict direction to the Regional Transport Officers concerned on 17.12.2015 with a view to stop the practice of levying exorbitant amounts for the registration of the vehicle and also to suspend or cancel the Trade Certificate issued to them if a complaint is received from vehicle purchasers regarding the collection of excess charges.  As per xx1/8464/xx/2008 dated 17.12.2015 it is mentioned that “വാഹനത്തിന്‍റെ ബി ല്‍ അഥവാ ഇന്‍വോ യ്സില്‍ സൂചിപ്പിച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന എക്സ് ഷോറും വില, ഇന്‍ഷുറന്‍സ്, ടാക്സ്‌, സെസ്സ്, രജിസ്ട്രേഷന്‍ ഫീസ് എന്നിവ കൂടാതെ ഹാന്‍ഡ്‌ലിംഗ് ചാര്‍ജ്, ലോജിസ്റ്റിക് ചാര്‍ജ്, മറ്റ് ചെലവുകള്‍ എന്നീ പേരുക ളില്‍ അധിക തുക ഈടാക്കുന്നുവെ ങ്കില്‍ താങ്കള്‍ക്ക് ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട റിജിയണ ല്‍  ട്രാന്‍സ്പോര്‍ട്ട് ഓഫീസ൪ മാരേയോ 8546739000 എന്ന മൊ ബൈല്‍ നമ്പ റില്‍ എസ്.എം.എസ് ആയോ വാട്ട്സ് ആപ്പ് സന്ദേശം ആയോ അല്ലെ ങ്കില്‍

Issues :

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs. 57,530/- @ 24% p.a interest from 15.06.2015?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Exts. P1 to P10 marked.  PW1 cross examined by opposite parties.  Opposite parties not filed chief affidavit.

Issue (i): Perused the complaint and evidence produced.  It is seen that complainant states that “logistic charges totaling Rs. 1,750/- was included in the estimation for the cost of the vehicle”, but complainant failed to produce any evidence regarding the claim for logistic charges.  The case of the complainant is that “an executive of the customer care centre informed the complainant that 1^st opposite party has charged only on road price from the prospective buyer.  The complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to deliver at ex-showroom price and that complainant will deal with other formalities”.  Ex-showroom price and on road price are different.  On road price includes temporary registration charge.  Vehicle cannot be run on road without getting temporary or permanent registration.  The complainant’s case is there is no need of temporary registration, only permanent registration is needed.  That is true when the complainant having permanent address with I.D within the RTO limit.  Complainant has no case that she was having permanent address to get permanent registration of the vehicle.  1^st opposite party cannot practically hand over the vehicle without temporary registration.  For that complainant has to pay registration charges.  The insurance charges of the vehicle can be avoided if the complainant is ready to take the risk.  The complainant has accepted the cancellation and 1^st opposite party is ready to refund the amount, but the complainant was reluctant to accept the same without interest at the rate of 24% per annum.  1^st opposite party has kept the vehicle ready for registration from 1^st June 2015 onwards.  We cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party and the complainant failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party and complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the 1^st opposite party. 

Issue (ii):- Regarding issue No. (ii), opposite party is ready to refund the amount from 15^th June 2015 onwards, date of request.  Ext. P8 which is produced and marked by the complainant clearly proves that 1^st opposite party is ready to refund the money from 26.09.2015 itself.  But complainant was not ready to accept the same.  After receiving this Ext. P8 also, complainant was reluctant to receive the amount instead she sent a mail to the opposite party in October claiming interest.  After that she came before us.  Ext. P8 sent to complainant.  So complainant is entitled for interest for keeping the amount with the 1^st opposite party from 15.06.2015 to 26.09.2015 only.  But here the 1^st opposite party has paid the amount to 2^nd opposite party and kept the vehicle ready.  1^st opposite party has not utilized the amount for making any profit.  At the same time complainant is losing bank rate interest for her amount.  This Forum is not for making unlawful enrichment.  So we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum from 15.06.2015 to 26.09.2015 only.

Issue (iii):- Regarding compensation it is already decided in issue (i).  So regarding cost we are of the opinion that cost shall be allowed for the complainant who spent for conducting the case.  We are of the opinion that cost of Rs. 2,000/- is allowed and that 1^st opposite party is liable to pay. 

In the result, complaint is partly allowed and 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 57,530/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 15.06.2015 up to 26.09.2015 and cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order .  Opposite parties 2 & 3 are exonerated. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of June 2017.        

         Sd/-

P.SUDHIR                             : PRESIDENT

         Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 574/2015

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Praveena Kumari

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of e-mail dated 08.07.2015

P2     - Copy of e-mail dated 09.07.2015 

P3     - Copy of complaint sent through mail dated 19.08.2015

P4     - Copy of mail dated 20.08.2015

P5     - Copy of mail dated 20.08.2015

P6     - Copy of mail dated 18.09.2015

P7     - Copy of mail dated 19.09.2015

P8     - Copy of letter sent by 1^st O.P to complainant

P9     - Copy of mail dated 02.10.2015

P10   - Copy of letter dated 24.10.16 sent from Transport Commissionerate

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb