Date of Filing:13/04/2011

        Date of Order:13/06/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  13^th DAY OF JUNE 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 729 OF 2011

Sri. Bharamappa,

S/o. Basappa,

Aged About 29 years,

Occupation: Raxi Owner,

R/at: Ambedkar Nagar,

Taluk & District: KOPPAL.                                                              ….  Complainant.

V/s

1. The District Manager,

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Development

Corporation Limited, 2^nd Floor,

District Administrative Building,

Hosapete Road, KOPPAL.

2. The Proprietor,

Prerana Motors Private Limited,

Tata Vehicle Authorised Dealer,

Kantha Court, 132, Lalbagh Road,

Bangalore-560027.

3. Tata Motors Limited,

Marketing Department,

Passengers Vehicles,

One Forbes, 5^th Floor,

Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg,

MUMBAI-400 023,

Rep. by its M.D.                                                             …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.95,000/-, are necessary:-

          The complainant being unemployed had approached opposite party No.1 for financial assistance for purchase of TATA-Indica Car and deposited Rs.28,662/-.  The opposite party No.1 entrusted the vehicle delivery to Bhagyodaya Motors Private Limited, Koppal, as the complainant’s residence was at a distance of 30 kilometers and he booked the vehicle by paying Rs.5,000/-.  The opposite party No.1 instead of giving the cheque in the name of complainant gave the cheque in favour of opposite party No.2 and that has caused a loss of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.  The tyres were fully damaged and the complainant had to go to Bangalore to get the tyres replaced and for that he sustained Rs.20,000/- loss.  On the date of purchase of the vehicle there was cash discount of Rs.25,000/-, as the complainant has purchased the said car within 30.04.2010 i.e., on 23.04.2010 but this benefit has not been given to the complainant hence there is deficiency in service.  The complainant had filed the complaint before the Consumer Forum at Koppal in complaint No.35/2010 which passed an order on 06.12.2010 stating that, that Forum has no jurisdiction and only Bangalore Consumer forum has jurisdiction.  Hence the complaint.  There was no central locking system which has been got done later.  Hence the complainant is entitled to Cash discount of Rs.25,000/-, Car Central Locks of Rs.5,000/-, Loss sustained due to issuance of DD in favour of some other show-room is Rs.20,000/-, for Mental agony Rs.20,000/-, for Deficiency of service Rs.20,000/- and for cost of the complaint is Rs.5,000/-.

2.       In this case opposite party No.1 and 3 though served remained absent.  Only opposite party No.2 has filed the version, but in the pages it has stated that it is a version of opposite party No.3 also.  In brief the version are:-

          The complainant is not a consumer.  The complainant has placed an order for TATA INDICAB DLE DIESEL VERSION TAXI to TATA INDICA DLS EIII with A/c and sought financial assistance from the opposite party No.1 which approved it on 10.03.2010 for an amount of Rs.3,67,062/-.  The complainant through a clever and illegal strategy sought for change of model from TATA INDICAB DLE DIESEL VERSION TAXI to TATA INDICA DLS EIII with A/c and the same was approved by the opposite party No.1 through letter dated: 23.04.2010 addressed to the second opposite party; wherein the 1^st opposite party approved the change of model provide the difference amount be paid by the complainant himself with respect to A.C.  Under these circumstances the model of the vehicle was sought to be changed from TATA INDICAB DLE DIESEL VERSION to TATA INDICA DLS EIII and not as alleged by the complainant.  The TATA INDICA DLS EIII version taxi had no such financial concession, the booking was made earlier.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their affidavits.  The complainant had filed the documents.  The arguments were heard.  

4.        The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A)        :           In the Positive.

Point (B)        :           As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complaint had made application to opposite party No.1 for assistance who had introduced the scheme for the benefits of the members of downtrodden oppressed cadres i.e., SC/ST persons.  The complainant being the member of that class of schedule caste had approached the opposite party No.1 for financial assistance for purchase of a TATA INDICA vehicle.  TATA Indica means it is a Tata Indica car and if it is used for taxi it will be called as Tata Indica vehicle and it will bear an yellow colour board; however there is no car manufactured by the TATA company called as TATA INDICAB.  Anyway after the financial sanction by the opposite party No.1 the opposite party No.1 has placed an order to supply the said vehicle to the complainant through one M/s. Bhagyodaya Motors Private Limited, Koppal, as the complainant was residing near Koppal.  The complainant had paid Rs.5,000/- in this regard and also paid certain amount to opposite party No.1.

7.       The opposite party No.2 and 3 had issued an offer with respect to this TATA INDICA cars offering certain discount and benefits and the said broacher is admitted by both the parties which reads thus:-

That is to say this offer is available to all the persons who purchase the car up to 30.04.2010.  Accordingly the TATA INDICA DLS EIII with A/c car had a benefit of cash discount of Rs.25,000/- and this has to be given to the complainant.  Taking this to his advantage the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party has issued a letter to opposite party No.2 on 23.04.2010.  The said letter reads thus:-

That means to say the complainant is entitled to all the benefits under the scheme and also for the AC he has to pay an extra amount and that has to be paid by the complainant himself and the first opposite party will not pay the same.  Accordingly the complainant paid the said amount on 23.04.2010 as per the sale certificate issued by the second opposite party on that day who delivered the vehicle to the complainant.  Hence the complainant is entitled to this rebate of Rs.25,000/-.  But the complainant had not been given that rebate, but it was collected from the complainant admittedly.  There is no dispute about not giving of this rebate of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant and collecting it from the complainant.  This is nothing but an unfair trade practice.

8.       The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that this concession that is payment of Rs.25,000/- by the company will only to the TATA INDICA DLS car and not to TATA INDICAB car in the sense if it is yellow board.  It is not there in the broacher not does it say that if the car is used as a taxi this benefit will not be given.  Hence not giving the benefit of this Rs.25,000/- is nothing but an unfair trade practice.  This is fully supported by the decision cited in 2011 CTJ 57 CPJ (NCDRC), 2009(2) CPR 116, 2010(2) CPR 397.  Discussing and quoting these judgments is prohibited under Regulation 18(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005.  Hence it is not quoted in extensor, but the principal is applied.  Hence there is deficiency in service and there is unfair trade practice.

9.       The complainant has stated that he had to change the tyres by coming to the Bangalore.  There is no material for it.  Further the complainant has stated that he had to get car central locks put and this has to be refundable.  There is no material for it.  The pleading is bald and proof is zero.

10.     The complainant has further claimed that since the DD has been given in favour of the second opposite party he suffered loss.  There is no material for it.  The scheme of the opposite party No.1 is for providing vehicle to the Harijans so that they can earn their livelihood and in doing so the public money is given to the complainant, with a meager interest as concession.  Hence under these circumstances there cannot be any mental agony and deficiency in service caused by opposite party No.1 in paying money to opposite party No.2.  Hence under these circumstances if we direct the opposite party No.2 and 3 to pay the complainant Rs.25,000/- with interest and cost of this litigation we think that will meet the ends of justice.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 30.04.2010 until payment within 30 days.
3. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this litigation.
4. The opposite parties shall send the amount as ordered above in Serial Nos. 2 and 3 by way of D.D. to the complainant through registered post acknowledgment due and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 13^th Day of June 2011)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT