Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

292/2011

B.Franklin - Complainant(s)

Versus

Concorde Motors (I) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

29 Jan 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 26.09.2011

                                                                          Date of Order : 29.01.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B., PGDCLP.               : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.292/2011

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019

                                 

B. Franklin,

S/o. Mr. P. Boaz,

Plot No.6, First Cross street,

Sangam Colony,

Kottivakkam,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                  

 

                                                                                         ..Versus..

 

The General Manager – Chennai Business Unit,

Concorde Motors (I) Ltd.,

(A 100% Subsidiary of TATA Motors),

No.42, Velachery Road,

Guindy,

Chennai – 600 032.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

          

 

For complainant                        :  Party in person

Counsel for the opposite party :  M/s. V. Annalakshmi & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund the excess amount of Rs.1,12,779/- collected from the complainant  and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and torture to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that on 21.01.2011, he approached the opposite party to purchase a Brand New Tata Nano car and booked a vehicle by paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- as advance.  Subsequently, the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.2,48,176/- and the vehicle was delivered to him on 11.02.2011.  The complainant submits that he has paid a sum of Rs.7,702/- towards accessories balance.  The complainant submits that after taking delivery of the vehicle, it was noticed that the opposite party has not provided with Sun Cool paper, under chassis paint, music system and alloy wheel.  On demand, the music system was replaced.   The opposite party has refunded a sum of Rs.5,397/- since there is no suitable alloy wheel available.   The complainant submits that while taking delivery of the vehicle, it is seen that the vehicle was used to run for 160 kms as a demo car.   The complainant submits that the opposite party sold the old car which has used for running 160 kms and the opposite party has not provided with a proper accessories.  Hence, the complainant requested the opposite party for exchange by purchasing a new car for which, the opposite party issued a quotation cum proforma invoice dated:21.03.2011 stating that the value of old car Nano LX Rs.1,30,000/-.  Thereby, the opposite party collected huge amount of Rs.2,48,176/- as excess of Rs.1,12,779/-.  The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states that the complainant had booked a Nano car after paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- as an advance.  Thereafter, the complainant paid the value of the car in repeated occasions and after paying the entire amount, a brand new Nano car was delivered after due registration.   The opposite party states that the car was sold to the complainant was already run for about 160 kms was duly explained to the complainant and the complainant accepted and taken delivery of the car after due registration.   The allegation that the car sold to the complainant is old and used as a demo car is false and incorrect.  The car sold to the complainant is of the same make and model for the accepted price in accordance with the wishes of the complainant’s colour.  The accessories including alloy wheel was not available.  Hence, the amount collected towards alloy wheel and other accessories were returned.   The opposite party states that the complainant approached the opposite party and given the details regarding the Nano car and obtained a quotation cum proforma invoice for exchange price and thereafter, issued a notice and filed this case.   The vehicle of the year 2011 for exchange the price fixed by the opposite party is Rs.1,30,000/-.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the excess amount of Rs.1,12,779/- collected towards Nano car as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite party’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that on 21.01.2011, he approached the opposite party to purchase a Brand New Tata Nano car and booked a vehicle by paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- as advance.  Subsequently, the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.2,48,176/- and the vehicle was delivered to him on 11.02.2011 Ex.A1 is the copy of the R.C. Book.   Ex.A2 is the copy of payment receipts.   Further the complainant contended that he has paid a sum of Rs.7,702/- towards accessories.  But there is no separate receipt filed before this Forum.   Further the complainant contended that after taking delivery of the vehicle, it was noticed that the opposite party has not provided with Sun Cool paper, under chassis paint, music system and alloy wheel.  On demand, the music system was replaced.  But none of the other items related to accessories has not provided and denied.   The opposite party has refunded a sum of Rs.5,397/- since there is no suitable alloy wheel available.   

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that while taking delivery of the vehicle, it is seen that the vehicle was used to run for 160 kms as a demo car.   But there is no record for such usage of demo car except running of 160 kms.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party sold the old car which has been used for running 160 kms and the opposite party has not provided with a proper accessories.  Hence, the complainant requested the opposite party for exchange by purchasing in for which, the opposite party issued a quotation cum proforma invoice dated:21.03.2011 as per Ex.A4 stating that the value of old car Nano LX Rs.1,30,000/-.  Thereby, the opposite party collected huge amount of Rs.2,48,176/- as excess of Rs.1,12,779/-.  Since, the opposite party valued the Nano car for only Rs.1,30,000/- on the very next month after receiving a sum of Rs.2,48,176/- the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.1,12,779/-.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party admitted that he sold the vehicle which has crossed 160 kms. 

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party would contend that admittedly, the complainant had booked a Nano car after paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- as an advance.  Thereafter, the complainant paid the value of the car in repeated occasions and after paying the entire amount, a brand new Nano car was delivered after due registration.  Ex.A1 is Registration Certificate. Further the contention of the opposite party is that the car was sold to the complainant was already run for about 160 kms was duly explained to the complainant and the complainant accepted and taken delivery of the car after due registration.   The allegation that the car sold to the complainant is old and used as a demo car is false and incorrect.  The car sold to the complainant is of the same make and model for the accepted price in accordance with the wishes of the complainant’s colour.  The accessories including alloy wheel was not available.  Hence, the amount collected towards alloy wheel and other accessories were returned.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant approached the opposite party and given the details regarding the Nano car and obtained a quotation cum proforma invoice for exchange price and thereafter, issued a notice and filed this case proves the sinister motive behind the case.   The vehicle of the year 2011 for exchange the price fixed by the opposite party is Rs.1,30,000/-. The complainant has not pleaded and proved any manufacturing defect in this case.   Equally, the complainant has not prayed for replacement of the car or alternatively, the refund of the cost price of the car.   On the other hand, the complainant filed this case claiming refund of a sum of Rs.1,12,779/- which is the difference amount of the cost price of the vehicle and the exchange price.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   After due explanation, regarding the run of 160 kms and after fully satisfying the vehicle, the complainant purchased the vehicle.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of January 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1		Copy of RC Book
Ex.A2 Series		Copy of receipt
Ex.A3		Copy of Form TCR Nos.4074 & 4077
Ex.A4	21.03.2011	Copy of quotation – cum –Proforma Invoice
Ex.A5 Series		Copy of price list of other dealers.
Ex.A6 Series	22.07.2011	Copy of registered post sent to Mr. S. Ramkumar, General Manager – Chennai Business Unit heading the Chennai Concorde Motors on 22.07.2011, which contains the correspondence made with the opposite party on various dates
Ex.A7		Copy of proof of registered post and acknowledgement received from the opposite party
Ex.A8	04.02.2012	Copy of job slip
Ex.A9	06.02.2012	Copy of job slip
Ex.A10	17.10.2011	Copy of letter from Tata for Starter Motor change
Ex.A11	10.11.2011	Copy of Tax invoice
Ex.A12	11.06.2011	Copy of tax invoice
Ex.A13	19.08.2011	Copy of vehicle slip Sl No.79
Ex.A14	25.06.2011	Copy of pick up service Sl. No.4450
Ex.A15	31.03.2012	Copy of tax invoice
Ex.A16	27.01.2011	Copy of form TCR No.4078
Ex.A17	09.02.2012	Copy of tax invoice

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT