THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No.01/2014
Tuesday, the 11th day of August, 2015.
Petitioner : Roy Varghese,
Thalodil House,
Meenadom P.O.
Kottayam (Dt.)
(Adv. Ancy George)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1 ) Ford India Pvt. Ltd.
Block IB, 1st Floor,
Rmz Millenia Business Park,
143, Dr. M.G.R. Road, North
Veeranam Salon, Perungadi,
Chennai – 600096.
(Adv. Zakhier Huzzain)
2) M/s. Kairali Ford, 508 – A,
Illikkattu Building,
Edappally P.O. Kochi – 682 024.
3) M/s. Kerala Cars Pvt. Ltd.
MGF Buildings,
Nagambadam, S.H. Mount P.O.
Kottayam – 686 006.
(Adv. Sheeba Tharakan and Adv. Denu Gerge)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 30/12/2013 is as follows.
The complainant on 01/07/2013 booked a Ford Ecosport Titanium Option Car by paying an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to the 3rd opposite party. The 1st opposite party is the manufacture of the vehicle and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are the authorised dealers of the 1st opposite party. According to the complainant, at the time of booking, the agreed price of the vehicle was Rs.9,15,989/- including tax and the opposite parties also agreed to deliver the vehicle on or before 28/07/2013. But the opposite parties delivered the vehicle only on 26/09/2013 and collected Rs.9,57,515/- as the price of the vehicle. So the complainant had to pay an excess amount of Rs.41,526/- than the agreed price. Moreover, complainant had to pay taxes and insurance for this excess amount of Rs.41,576/- ie. Rs.3,322/- as road tax and Rs.1305 as insurance extra for the said excess amount. According to the complainant, the price of the vehicle was increased after 28/07/2013. If the opposite parties would have provided the vehicle in time as assured the price hike wouldn’t have affected. The opposite parties deliberately delayed the supply of the vehicle for charging the increased price from the complainant. According to the complainant, he had booked the vehicle only on believing the promises made by the opposite parties that he would get it’s delivery before 28/07/2013. According to the complainant, the opposite parties delivered vehicles to some other persons overlooking the priority of booking. There was a delay of 2 months in getting the vehicle. Due to the delay in delivery of vehicle, complainant was put to heavy loss, troubles and damages. So the complainant on 18/10/2013 sent lawyers notice demanding the compensation and the amount paid in excess by him. But opposite party has not redressed the grievances of the complainant. According to the complainant, he is a consumer of opposite parties and there is a valid consumer dispute between the parties. Hence this complaint.
Notices to opposite parties 1 and 2 were served, but they were not cared to contest the case.
Opposite party 3 filed version admitting the booking of a Ford Ecosport Titanium option car on 01/07/2013 by remitting Rs.50,000/- as advance by the complainant. According to the 3rd opposite party, the opposite parties have not made any offers or agreement regarding the actual date of delivery or price of the vehicle. The terms and conditions of delivery specifically stated that the vehicle specification and price including statutory duties / levies will be applicable as prevailing on the date of invoice of the vehicle and also that vehicle delivery is subject to production of vehicles by the manufacturer. The complainant has agreed to the said terms and conditions of delivery. And the 3rd respondent has given the vehicle to the complainant in the order of booking when they got the vehicle from the 1st opposite party. The complainant had agreed to the above terms and conditions and took delivery of the vehicle paying the price of the vehicle prevalent on the date of purchase with full satisfaction without any objection. Since the 3rd opposite party has not agreed to give the vehicle for any particular amount, they are not liable for any excess amount incurred by the complainant towards the cost of vehicle, road tax and insurance. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have no aware about the increase in price of the vehicle after 28/07/2013 and they have not delayed the vehicle deliberately. According to the 3rd opposite party, they have not given delivery of vehicle to anyone, who booked the vehicle after the complainant. According to the 3rd opposite party, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them and 3rd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for considerations are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Relief and costs?
Evidence in the case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and 3rd opposite party and the deposition of the complainant as pw1. And Ext.A1 to A5 documents from the side of complainant and Ext.B1 document from the side of 3rd opposite party. Complainant and 3rd opposite party filed argument note.
Point No.1
Complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not delivering the vehicle in time. It is also stated that due to the delay in delivery of the vehicle, complainant forced to pay excess amount of Rs.46,153/-. Complainant produced copy of the customer order form and the same is marked as A4. In Ext.A4, the date of estimated time of delivery is shown as 28/07/2013. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by the opposite party 3 to the complainant. Ext.A1 is dtd.26/09/2013 and the price of the vehicle show as Rs.9,57,515/-. So from Ext.A1, it can be inferred that the vehicle was delivered on 26/09/2013 ie. the vehicle was only delivered two months after the agreed date. Admittedly, the complainant had paid an excess amount of Rs.46,153/-. According to the complainant, if the vehicle was delivered in time as agreed complainant is not liable to pay the escalated price. The counsel for the opposite party, rely on a decision rendered by
The Hon’ble SC in Ravinder Raj Vs. M/s.Competent Motors Co.Pvt. Ltd and another (reported in 2011 KHC4127).
The said dictum, the Hon’ble S.C. stated that in the absence of any evidence of deliberate intention on the part of a dealer, customer is liable to pay increase price. In our view, in this case there is no evidence on record to prove that the delay in delivery was not with deliberate intention. Furthermore, the said case, the hike in price was due to increase in excise duty. Eventhough, 3rd opposite party has a definite contention that the vehicle was delivered by looking the priority, they have not overlooked the priority of the complainant. But no delivery register or booking register for the disputed period was produced by the opposite party to prove the said contention. Moreover, the 3rd opposite party in their argument note stated that they are not maintaining booking and delivery register. In our view, non delivery of the vehicle in agreed time and receipt of excess amount than the agreed price amounts to deficiency in service. All opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for compensating the complainant for the deficiency in service committed by them. Eventhough, complainant claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation. But nothing has produced on record to prove the same. However, what had happened may caused much loss and sufferings and mental agony to the complainant. So, he is to be compensated. Point No.1 found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in Point No.1, complaint is allowed.
In the result,
- Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.46,153/- to the complainant, the excess amount spent by him due to delaying delivery.
- Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
- Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 11th day of August, 2015.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Copy of invoice dtd.26/09/2013.
Ext.A2 : Copy of receipt dtd.01/07/2013 from 3rd opposite party
Ext.A3 : Copy of price list from 2nd opposite party
Ext.A4 : Copy of customer order form 2nd opposite party.
Ext.A5 : Copy of lawyers notice dtd.18/10/2013
Ext.A5 series: Postal recites 6 Nos. and Postal acknowledgement cards (6 Nos.)
Witness
Pw1 : Roy Varghese
Documents of opposite party
Ext.B1 : Customer Order Form with terms and conditions from 2nd opposite party
By Order
Senior Superintendent
