CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD
Dated this the 10th March, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 26/05/2014
CC /77/2014
Shiny.K.H,
W/o.Rajesh.K.P, Chandini,
Kallekulangara Post,
Akathethara, Palakkad. : Complainant
Rep.by Husband K.P.Rajesh(Beneficiary)
(By Adv.C.Madhavankutty)
Vs
General Manager, : Opposite party
ITL Motors Pvt Ltd,
4/623,624,625, AMI Building,
Meparambu, Pirayiri post,
Palakkad.
(By Adv.K.N.Vijayaraghavan)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The complainant purchased a new Jeep bearing registration No.KL.08.AC.2808 from the opposite party by remitting the entire cost of the vehicle. It is alleged that the purchase of the vehicle was effected through the opposite party’s sales executive named Rajesh.K. The vehicle was purchased for the use of the complainant’s husband in his daily life. There was a change of colour in the temporary registration certificate as “Artic White” instead of the actual colour of the vehicle “rocky beige". The Asst.Manager Mr.Joseph undertook to correct the same at the earliest. But the same was not done as agreed. It is alleged that the opposite party sent the above sales executive Sri.Rajesh on 10/01/2014 to collect the road tax amount from the complainant and accordingly complainant paid Rs.59,050/- to the sales executive and he issued receipt No.4332. Thereafter complainant constantly enquired with opposite party regarding the change of the colour in the temporary registration certificate. But the opposite party have been prolonging it by stating some reasons or other. More over the opposite party had failed to get permanent registration certificate on the pretext that the road tax amount was not remitted. The complainant was concerned about the permanent registration of the vehicle and the vehicle should be registered permanently in the concerned RTA office within a period of 1 month failing which complainant would be imposed with penalty. The complainant was informed that the sales executive K.Rajesh committed suicide and the road tax amount paid by the complainant was not remitted by K.Rajesh, the sales executive through whom the entire deal was finalized. The complainant alleges that the act on the part of the opposite party after receiving road tax amount through K.Rajesh and issuing a receipt for the same and disowning the liability on the ground that K.Rajesh did not remit the amount with the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Opposite party is vicariously liable for the acts and deeds done by their employee. Hence the complainant had filed the above complaint seeking an order to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.59,050/- to the complainant towards road tax with 12% interest from 10/01/2014 and also to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- for mental agony strain and loss of reputation.
The opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed a detailed version stating the following contentions. The opposite party denied the allegation that the purchase of the vehicle from the opposite party was effected through his sales executive named K.Rajesh. K.Rajesh was only a sales consultant and his duty was only to brief the customer regarding the quality and cost of the vehicle, conduct the test drive and deliver the vehicle after completion of sales. The change in the color of the vehicle in the temporary registration certificate was corrected without any delay as soon as it was noticed. No delay was caused to the correction of change of color of the vehicle. The delay for permanent registration was caused because the complainant waited for permanent registration of the vehicle to get the fancy number quoted by her. The sale consultant Rajesh was never authorized to collect any amount on behalf of the company. He was not authorized to issue any receipt on behalf of the company also. Sales consultants can only issue order taking form copy and proforma invoice. K.Rajesh was not authorized to collect road tax by way of cash and make any entry regarding the receipt of rod tax in proforma invoice. The cash receipts were issued only by authorized signatory from the cash counter. There is prescribed printed forms for cash receipts. Only such cash receipts in the printed form signed by the authorized signatory will be binding and honored by the opposite party. The sale consultant K.Rajesh had not remitted the tax amount at the RTA Office or with the opposite party. If the complainant had hand over the road tax amount with K.Rajesh as alleged in the complaint it is only on her own risk. The opposite party never requested or demanded the complainant to hand over the road tax amount with K.Rajesh. There is no fault or latches from the side of the opposite party. The pro forma invoice and order taking forms are only estimates or quotations for the cost of vehicle and attending expenses. They are not cash receipts. Further the terms and conditions printed on the proforma invoice and order taking forms make it clear that all payments are preferred through DD or Transfer of funds through accounts. Any cash payment made at the cash counter will be necessarily followed by the issuance of receipt by the authorized signatory. Any other mode of payment made to unauthorized persons is not binding on the company.
This opposite party does not admit that complainant paid the road tax amount to Mr.Rajesh. If the complainant paid any amount to Mr.Rajesh and if he misappropriated the amount and committed cheating and played fraud on complainant, he alone was responsible. That amount if any has to be recovered from his assets and from his legal heirs. There is no vicarious liability on the company for the misappropriation, fraud, cheating or other criminal acts done by the employee of the company. Complainant is not entitled to get any relief claimed in the complaint. The complaint has to be dismissed with the cost to the opposite party.
Both parties filed chief affidavits. Opposite party filed application to cross examine the complainant. Complainant’s husband filed authorization to examine him on behalf of complainant and fresh affidavit was filed by him. Complainant’s husband was cross examined as PW1. Complainant also filed application for cross examination the opposite party. Opposite party’s witness filed fresh affidavit and was examined as DW1.
Matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what are the reliefs and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
We had perused the documents as well as affidavits produced from both sides. It is obvious from Ext.A1 that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 59050/- to the opposite party through their employee on 10/01/2014. Even if the opposite party has stated that proforma invoice is not an authenticated cash receipts, it is evident from Ext.A1 that the employee is authorized to collect amount from the customer for the purpose of paying vehicle taxes. DW1 has also admitted those facts at the time of cross examination. Opposite party had admitted that the deceased Rajesh was their Sales Consultant. Their only allegation is that Rajesh who allegedly received road tax amount from the complainant had not remitted the amount to the opposite party. They also contented that it is clearly stated in the proforma invoice that the receipt has to be obtained from the company within 48 hours of payment. The complainant had not made any complaint to the opposite party that she did not get cash receipts of the company, even after 48 hours. The person who allegedly received road tax amount from the complainant and endorsed in the proforma invoice had committed suicide. During cross examination the complainant’s husband had deposed that when he enquired about the proper receipt over phone to the said Rajesh, he stated that the proforma invoice is sufficient. Hence he did not made any further complaints with regard to the non receipt of payment. DW1 during cross examination had deposed that the amount collected as per the proforma invoice by the consultants will not be verified by any of the officials of the opposite party. It is the boundant duty of the opposite party to honour the commitments undertaken by the employees from their customers. Disowning the liability towards the customers on the ground that the amount was not remitted by them is not a proper practice. The opposite party ought to have verified all the entries in the proforma invoices and cross-checked all the entries with regard to the payments collected from their customers. Without doing so, they have committed gross negligence from their part. They cannot wash up their hands in front of the customers, by disowning the commitments taken up by their employees on the ground that they are unaware of the transactions. The act on the part of the opposite party receiving the amount through their employee after issuing the receipt for the same and thereafter disowning the liability on the ground that the said employee did not remit the amount with the opposite party amounts to gross negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. They cannot disown the liability towards their customers stating flimsy reasons. The bonafide customers cannot be penalized or put in to trouble because of the fault and latches on the part of the opposite party. Hence we are of the view that the opposite party had committed deficiency of service from their part. Hence the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.59,050/- (Rupees Fifty nine thousand fifty only) paid by the complainant towards road tax with 6% interest from 10/1/2014 along with an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and strain suffered by the complainant. We also direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of this proceedings. Aforesaid amount shall be paid within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the principle tax amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 10th day of March 2015.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Pro forma invoice cum cash receipt to complainant dtd.10/01/2014
Ext.A2 – Vehicle Data sheet to complainant Dtd.07/01/2014
Ext.A3- Sale certificate to complainant dtd.07/1/2014
Ext.A4- Notice to be sent by complainant dtd.23/4/2014
Ext.A5- Acknowledgement card received by complainant dtd.26/4/2014
Ext.A6-E-mail copy with attachments by opposite party to the complainant dtd.17/4/2014
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite party
Nil
Witness marked on the side of complainant
PW1-Rajesh.K.P
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1-Joseph Simon
Cost Allowed
Rs.2,000/- as cost
