BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 135/2010 Filed on 10.05.2010

Dated : 31.03.2011

Complainant:

Naveen G. Pai, Scientist/Engineer, 'SE', BSTD, ISRO Inertial Systems Unit, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram-13.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite parties :

1. EVM Motors, Neeramankara Junction, Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram-40.

    

   (By adv. S. Ajith)

    

2. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1 & 2, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana- 122 050.

This O.P having been taken as heard on 05.03.2011, the Forum on 31.03.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant has booked a Honda Unicorn Motor Cycle with colour choice red in black with the 1^st opposite party on 10.12.2009. The dealer tipped off a delay of two months for delivery of the vehicle which was acceptable to the complainant. On contacting the 1^st opposite party, it was informed that the complainant will get the bike on 18.02.2010. Accordingly he has remitted Rs. 63,095/- on 17.02.2010 inclusive of charges for accessories, insurance and registration as demanded by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 25.02.2010, since no communication was forthcoming from their side regarding registration of the vehicle. The 1^st opposite party told the complainant that red on black colour bike was not there in the previous consignment and will be getting the vehicle from the next immediate lot. Later on 29.03.2010 the 1^st opposite party told the complainant that 2^nd opposite party has stopped production of red on black bikes. Thereafter the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party, then they informed that red and silver colour version are available. On 07.04.2010 the complainant reached the opposite party's show room and agreed to accept red on silver colour bike and signed the cheque of option. After getting the change of option signed, the opposite party demanded to remit a sum of Rs. 4,000/- more for the vehicle. The Sales Manager when approached, reasoned that the price for both the models are same, but prices hiked by Rs. 4,000/- since the time complainant has remitted the vehicle price. The complainant states that he is entitled to get the vehicle for the same price when he paid the price of the vehicle, i.e; 17.02.2010. The dealer has no right to ask for an increased price after imposing an inordinate delay. Starting and stopping the production of a model may be the prerogative of the company as claimed by 1^st opposite party. But they are indebted to honour the agreement reached with the complainant to sell a red in black bike especially when they have realized the entire price of the vehicle in advance. The question of price hike would not have arose if the vehicle was delivered on 18.07.2010 as assured by the 1^st opposite party. Hence the complainant demands delivery of vehicle red on black or silver at 17^th February price, interest on the amount collected by 1^st opposite party at bank loan rate from 17.02.2010 till the date of delivery of the vehicle and compensation and costs.

1^st opposite party in this case is EVM Motors and 2^nd opposite party is Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. 1^st opposite party filed version for and on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party also. They stated that there was strike at the plant of the 2^nd opposite party and as a consequence the production of vehicles were affected and there were huge delay of supply of two wheelers from the part of the 2^nd opposite party. There is huge demand in the market for the vehicles and a delay of more than six months is taken for delivery of the vehicles. The 1^st opposite party informed all the customers about the delay and is accepting booking only from those who are willing to wait. The delivery is made strictly in accordance with priority in booking. The complainant booked the vehicle on 10.12.2009 by paying an amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The opposite party has issued a receipt for the payment with the specification of balance payment to be made as well. In the receipt itself it was specifically stated that the price of the vehicle at the time of billing will be applicable. They submitted that the complainant visited the opposite party on 17.02.2010 and offered payment of the balance price. The opposite party informed him that the vehicle is not available and he need not make the balance payment at that time and that even if the balance is paid and there is any hike in price of the vehicle at the time of delivery he will have to bear the same. The complainant agreed stating that if the money is with him he may spend the same for some other purpose and remitted an amount of Rs. 63,095/-. The opposite party has issued receipt for the same in which also it is specifically stated that the price at the time of billing is applicable. The opposite parties submitted that the colour opted by the complainant was no more available since there was no production by the 2^nd opposite party of the said colour, the complainant was informed of the matter. He was also informed that red and silver colours are available. The complainant approached the opposite party during April 2010 and has opted to purchase a silver colour vehicle. It is submitted that at that time there is a hike of around Rs. 3,146/-. The complainant refused to pay the said amount and has filed the present complaint. The opposite party is ready and willing to deliver the vehicle on the complainant making the balance payment and if the complainant is not interested in purchasing the vehicle the opposite party is ready to refund the amount paid by the complainant. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the complaint only deserves to be dismissed.

Complainant and opposite parties filed proof affidavit and examined them as PW1 and DW1. From the complainant's side 3 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P3.

Points to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant made the advance booking amount to the opposite party on 10.12.2009 and he has paid the balance amount on 17.02.2010 to the 1^st opposite party for getting a Honda Unicorn motor cycle red in black colour. The 1^st opposite party informed him that he will get the vehicle after two months. He remitted the balance amount on 17.02.2010. Ext. P1 and P2 are the payment receipts dated 17.02.2010. But till 25.02.2010 there was no communication from the opposite parties' side regarding the delivery of the vehicle. So the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party through e-mail and they assured that they will look into the matter and informed that red and silver colour version are available. Ext. P3 is the reply. Accordingly he changed the colour option and agreed to take delivery of red or silver colour. Then the opposite party asked to remit a sum of Rs. 4,000/- more for the vehicle. The complainant argued that since he has paid the entire price of the vehicle on 17.02.2010 he is entitled to get the vehicle for the same price. The opposite parties argued that the payment is made by the complainant under a contract and it is specifically provided in the condition that price at the time of billing is applicable. Ext. P1 is the payment receipt. In Ext. P1 it is specifically stated that “the price ruling at the time of billing will be applicable”. Hence the complainant is liable to pay the amount prevailing at the time of taking the vehicle. In this case the complainant reached the showroom for taking delivery of the vehicle on 07.04.2010, then there was a price hike of Rs. 4,000/- to the vehicle. But the complainant was not ready to pay the hiked price. As per the terms of the contract the complainant is liable to pay the price at the time of billing. We find that there is no cause of action for filing this complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

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 31^st day of March 2011.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 135/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Naveen G. Pai

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of payment receipt dated 17.02.2010

P2 - Copy of payment receipt dated 17.02.2010

P3 - Copy of e-mail dated 30.03.2010

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Unni Vikraman

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT