CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 07/12
Monday the 3rd day of March 2014
Petitioner : Rosamma George,
W/o Adv.George C Kappen,
Kappil House, Pala,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Benny Joseph)
Vs
Opposite parties : Popular Hundai,
Popular Motor World Pvt.Ltd.,
Sastri Road, Kottayam Repted by its
General Manager.
(Adv. Siby Chenappady)
ORDER
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Case of the petitioner filed on 06/12/11 is as follows:
Petitioner on 10-6-11 booked a VERNA 1.6SX.CRDI having a value of Rs. 9 lakhs, in the office of the opposite party by paying Rs.75,000/- and opposite party agreed that the vehicle will be delivered within 20 days. According to petitioner on 13-6-11 senior product consultant of opposite party assured that the vehicle will be delivered within 10 days of remitting major amount. On 13-6-11 petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.4,25,000/-, on 29-6-11 and 30-6-11 petitioner remitted the balance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs each. Thus petitioner paid the entire price of the vehicle. According to petitioner on 30-6-11 opposite party assured the petitioner that the vehicle will be delivered within
3 days. But opposite party has not delivered the vehicle as promised and on 18-7-11 petitioner issued a letter to opposite party informing the delay and demand 13% interest for the default period. According to petitioner even after the receipt of the said letter the opposite party has not delivered the vehicle as promised. On 12-8-11 opposite party delivered the vehicle by receiving an amount of Rs.68,750/- which the price difference on the date of delivery. According to petitioner on 30-6-11 opposite party collected an amount of Rs. 9 lakhs but they delivered the vehicle only on 12-8-11. According to petitioner thereby opposite party made unlawful gain out of the said transaction and the said act of opposite party has caused much hardship and discomfort to the petitioner and it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this petition.
Opposite party filed version contenting that they never undertake to deliver the vehicle within 20 days. Usually there was a delay of 6 months for the delivery of Verna CRDI SX 1.6 car. So opposite party or their employees never gave an assurance of delivery of the vehicle within 20 days. According to opposite party petitioner booked a Thunder Black CRDISX 1.6 on 11-6-11 and at that time petitioner was informed that thunder black colour car will be provided only on availability from the manufacturer. According to opposite party there is no deficiency of service on the part of them and they pray for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for determinations are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of petitioner and Ext.A1 to A9 documents. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence. Petitioner filed argument note.
Point No.1
According to the petitioner opposite party has not delivered the VERNA 1.6 SX CRDI vehicle even after accepting the entire price of the vehicle. Opposite party has delivered the vehicle after 42 days of acceptance of the price of the vehicle. The acceptance of the entire amount of the vehicle is proved by the petitioner through Ext.A1 to A5 documents. From Ext.A1 to A5 documents it can be seen that on 30-6-11 opposite party received an amount of Rs.9,00,000/-. From Ext.A6 documents it can be seen that the vehicle was delivered on 12-8-11. According to opposite party the delay in delivery was due to lack of Thunder Black colour car which the petitioner wanted. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove their contentions. So we are constrained to relay on the proof affidavit filled by the petitioner. In our view the opposite party has no authority to keep entire price of the vehicle in their hands for 42 days. Act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So petitioner is entitled for interest for the said amount at prevailing bank rate. So in this case opposite party is liable to pay an interest at the rate of 12% for the Nine lakhs ruppes to the petitioner, from 30-6-11 to 12-8-11. Point No.1 is find accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in Point No.1 petition is allowed.
In the result
- Opposite party is ordered to pay interest at the rate of 12% for 9 lakhs rupees from 30-6-11 to 12-8-11, to the petitioner.
- Opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost.
Order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If not complied as directed petitioner is entitled to get 9% interest for the award amount from the date of order.
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1-copy of Order Booking Form dtd 10-6-11
Ext.A2-Copy of Temporary receipt dtd 10-6-11 for Rs.75,000/-
Ext.A3-Copy of Temporary receipt dtd 13-6-11 for Rs.4,25,000/-
Ext.A4-Copy of Temporary receipt dtd 29-6-11 for Rs.2,00,000/-
Ext.A5-Copy of Temporary receipts dtd 30-6-11 for Rs.2,00,000/- and
12-8-11 for Rs.68750/-
Ext.A6-Copy of Customer’s Account Settlement Voucher
Ext.A7-Copy of lawyer’s notice dtd 25-8-11
Ext.A8-AD card
Ext.A9-Copy of letter dtd 18-7-11 issued to OP
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
