By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Complaint in short is as follows: -
1. The complainant purchased a WagonR car for the price 6,74,000/-and he exchanged his old wagonR Maruthi car for an amount of Rs.60,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.6,14,000/- by cheque on 28/03/2019 and the opposite party encashed the same on the day itself. The opposite party had agreed the delivery of the vehicle within 10 days of booking. But the opposite party failed to provide the vehicle as assured. Hence the complainant made a complaint to the Maruti India Limited on 16th April 2019 vide complaint No.2134682203. On the same day the complainant got a call from AM Motors (Mr. Sharath) which the complainant felt a threatening call on complaining to the principles of the opposite party directly.
2. The complainant submit that he demanded a spare car for the days since it will help the complainant to his daily budget of the hiring a car from outside. The opposite party failed to deliver the car more than 2 weeks and so the complainant sustained mental agony and physical torture. Hence the complainant prays Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation from the opposite party.
3. The first opposite party filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. According to the first opposite party the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint is filed by the complainant which is wholly misconceived, with Malafide intention and the complaint is trying to abuse the process, the complaint is not appeared with clean hands, guilty of suppressing true facts, concocting and circumventing the material facts and so the complaint is to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The opposite party submitted that the complainant neither entered any contract for sale of goods nor hired any service for consideration and so there is no privity between the parties since the transaction took place between the complainant and opposite parties two and three. The complainant impleaded the answering opposite party with an ulterior motive to cause wrong loss and to obtain undue gain and therefore the present complaint is not maintainable for misjoinder of parties. The attempt of the complainant is to cause harm to the reputation and good will of the opposite party and that score also the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
4. The first opposite party submitted that they are the manufactures of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles and does not sell the vehicles so manufactured by it directly to any individual customer. The opposite party sells vehicle to his dealers under the dealership agreement and the dealers sell the vehicle to their customers under their own invoice and sale certificate as per the terms and conditions settled between the dealer and its individual customer. The first opposite party cannot be held liable for any act or omission or commission on the part of the dealer as the transaction of sale is independent between the dealer and its customer. The opposite party submitted that the second opposite party is a separate and independent legal entity to carry on its business of sale of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicle to their consumers as per the terms and conditions of sale of vehicle settled between them.
5. The complainanant has not raised any allegation or sought any specific prayer in his complaint against the first opposite party. As per the document the vehicle was booked by the complainant with second opposite party and complainant sold his vehicle to the second opposite party. There was no role for the first opposite party to the alleged sale transaction. There is no specific allegation against the first opposite party from the side of complainant and the complainant failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claim against first opposite party. The first opposite party further submitted that the new vehicle booked by the complainant with second opposite party has already been delivered to the complainant in the month of April 2019 and the complainant has also issued a satisfaction note in favor of second opposite party to express his satisfaction with regard to the subject matter of present complaint and so the complaint has become in fructuous. The first opposite party further submitted that they had not made any promise to the complainant and so there is no question of breaking the same. It is further contended and denied that the complainant sustained any mental or physical torture, financial or mental trauma due to the act of the first opposite party and so the complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the first opposite party and so the complaint liable to be dismissed.
6. Opposite parties two and three filed version. The opposite parties denied the entire averments an allegation in the complaint. The complaint is not maintainable and which is not filed with bonofidies.
7. The opposite parties two and three admitted that the complainant sold his 2014 model WagonR car to the opposite party for true value and the value fixed as Rs.60,000/-. But the opposite party denied that they had assured to deliver new vehicle within 10 days. The complainant booked for a NUT MEG BROWN color car. The opposite party had agreed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant immediately on availability of the vehicle. The complainant had agreed for the same. The opposite party denied that the complainant called to the opposite party to register his complaint and on the same day one Sharath, one of the executives of the opposite party called the complainant and threatened him. The opposite party further denied that the complainant had demanded a substitute car while booking new vehicle for his use during the delivery period. The complainant never contacted the opposite party for the same either through the phone or through any document. The vehicle ordered by the complainant was temporarily registered on 29/04/2019 itself. The opposite party was trying to avail the vehicle which the complainant booked with the color specification. The opposite party denied the averment that the complainant suffered mental agony and physical hardship due to the act of the opposite party. Hence, the opposite party pray for the dismissal of the complaint with cost of the opposite party.
8. The complainant and opposite parties two and three filed affidavit and documents. The first opposite party filed version with affidavit but not filed separate affidavit in lieu of evidence. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is copy of order booking/commitment check list issued by the second opposite party, nil dated. Ext. A2 is copy of possession letter /true value issued by AM motors, true value dated 28/03/2019. Ext.A3 is copy of acknowledgement of possession issued by second opposite party. Ext. A4 is relationship /statement for account the period from 01/03/2019 to 31/03/2019. The opposite parties did not file any document.
9. Heard both side, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration
1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2) Relief and cost?
10. Point No.1 and 2
The grievance of the complainant is that he booked for a new model WagonR car exchanging his old WagnoR maruti car on 28/03/2019. The value of the new model car was Rs.6,74,000/- and the value assessed for old WagonR Maruti car was Rs.60,000/-. The complainant paid the entire amount to the opposite party by cheque on 28 March 2019 and the opposite party encashed the money on the very same day with the promise of delivery of the vehicle within 10 days but the opposite parties failed to deliver the vehicle within 10 days. The opposite parties admitted the booking of car on 28/03/2019 exchanging 2004 model wagonR car including exchange bonus as rupees 60,000/-. But the second and third opposite party denied the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party had agreed to deliver the vehicle within 10 days. The contention of the second and third opposite party is that the complainant booked NUT MEG BROWN color car and it was assured to deliver at the earliest on availing. It is further submitted that the vehicle ordered by the complainant was temporary registered on 22/04/2019 and the opposite party had taken necessary steps to deliver the vehicle to the complainant.
11. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that the opposite party had agreed to deliver the vehicle within 10 days of booking. But the complainant produced Ext. A1 order booking / commitment check list therein it reveals specific captions for mentioning tentative waiting period of tentative delivery date. But the relevant columns stand not filled. That means the opposite party has not fairly fill up the order booking form to avoid the misunderstanding between the complainant and the second opposite party. In the absence of non-filling of relevant columns what can be done is to accept the version of the complainant. So we are of the view that the opposite party had agreed to deliver the vehicle within short period of 10 days as contended by the complainant. The complainant placed booking order with an exchange of his old vehicle so there is chance to claim an alternative travelling facility by substituting a vehicle for his use till delivery of the new vehicle. It also not seen in the matter. The perusal of version and affidavit of second and third opposite party does not reveal the date of availability of booked vehicle. The opposite party submitted in the affidavit that the vehicle was available for temporary registration on 22/04/2019. But the complainant submit that the vehicle was delivered to him only on 25/04/2019 at his residence. So the date of delivery of the vehicle can be concluded as on 25/04/2019. In effect, though the opposite party had agreed to deliver the vehicle within 10 days as claimed by the complainant the opposite party delivered the vehicle with a delay of 18 days. Hence the case of the complainant that the delay occurred in delivery stands proved. Moreover, improper filling of order booking form by the opposite party regarding the columns tentative waiting period and tentative delivery date proves the unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party.
12. Though the first opposite party did not file affidavit in lieu of evidence, he has filed version with affidavit contenting that lack of privity of contract between complainant and first opposite party. The first opposite party has got a further contention that the complainant has not raised any specific allegation against the first opposite party. At the same time, it can be seen that the agreement is between the complainant and opposite parties two and three. So, we find that the second and third opposite parties failed to perform as agreed by Ext. A1 and also there is unfair trade practice from the side of second and third opposite parties. So, the second third opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the inconvenience, hardship and financial loss sustained to the complainant. The complainant has got a contention that during the delayed period he was constrained to avail special conveyance considering his health reason. But the claim of the complainant is to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- is no doubt, it is an exorbitant amount. We consider Rs.15,000/- will be a reasonable amount as compensation for the deficiency in service caused from the part of second and third opposite parties. The complainant also entitled a reasonable amount of cost of Rs.5,000/-.
In the light of above facts and circumstances, we allow this complaint as follows:-
The opposite parties two and three are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby caused inconveniences, hardships and financial loss sustained to the complainant.
The opposite parties two and three are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties two and three are directed to comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order to till date of payment.
Dated this 6th day of February, 2023.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman 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.A1 to A4
Ext.A1: Copy of order booking/commitment check list issued by the second opposite
party nil dated.
Ext.A2: Copy of possession letter /true value issued by AM motors true value dated
28/03/2019.
Ext A3: Copy of acknowledgement of possession issued by second opposite party.
Ext A4: Relationship /statement for account the period from 01/03/2019 to 31/03/2019.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
