DOF. 24.12.2008 DOO. 9.12 . 2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 9th day of December 2010 C.C.No.318/2008 Dr.Radhakrishnan.C.M., Deepam, P.O.Chirakkara, Thalassery. (Rep. by Adv.C.K.Rathnakaran) Complainant HAR Auto Private Ltd., Har Avenue, Kannothumchal, Chovva Post (Rep. by Adv.M.Preman) Opposite parties O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan,President This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to return back the enhanced amount of ` 23,000 and to pay the interest of `17427 together with `5000 towards compensation and also cost of this litigation. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: complainant booked a Maruthi Swift D’Zire paying the extant entire price `666567 as per the demand of the opposite party on 20.4.08. The opposite party then informed that complainant has to pay any increase in price and agreed to deliver the vehicle within two weeks. But vehicle was delivered only after 3 months and 10 days i.e. on 30.7.08. By the time `23000 was increased in price and complainant paid the amount. Car was booked by paying entire amount believing that it will be delivered within two weeks. Since it is a commercial transaction opposite party is bound to give 21% interest for the period of 20.4.08 to 30.7.08. Opposite party paid an amount of `7223 whereas he is entitled to get an amount of `17427 more towards interest. Complainant was compelled to pay the enhanced amount due to the willful delay of the opposite party in delivering the vehicle. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It caused great mental agony to complainant. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the main allegation of the complainant. The contention raised by opposite party in brief are as follow: Opposite party denies the allegation that the opposite party agreed to deliver the vehicle within two weeks. There was no such assurance. The delivery period during this time for the Maruthi Swift D’Zire was 4 to 6 months. Complainant’s vehicle was delivered within 4 months. As per the terms and conditions of booking complainant is liable to pay the price prevailing at the time of invoicing of the vehicle. As per the guide lines of Maruthi Suzuki Ltd. the customers are entitled to get the interest according to the prevailing norms of Maruthi. So the interest amount of `7, 223 has been credited to the complainant’s account. So complainant is not entitled to get further amount of `17427. The vehicle delivery would be subjected to the production and supply of vehicles from Maruthi Zuzuki Ltd. There is no out of turn delivery. The delivery of the vehicle is strictly in accordance with priority. As dealer opposite party is bound to follow the guidelines given by the company in booking and delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle was actually delivered to complainant before its maturity. There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues are raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1, A2, Exts.B1 & B2. There is no oral evidence on the part of opposite party. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 Admittedly complainant booked for a Maruthi Swift DeZire Car on 21.4.08. Complainant booked the car paying the then market price `666567.Complainnat’s case is that opposite party promised to deliver the vehicle within two weeks and complainant agreed to pay the increase in price at the time of delivery. But the opposite party delivered the vehicle only on 30.7.08, three months after date of booking. By the time the price of the vehicle increased to `23000 and complainant compelled to pay the same due to the willful delay caused by the opposite party in delivering the vehicle. Complainant also alleged that he is entitled for 21% interest on the amount of booking for the period of delay. Opposite party on the other hand contended that there was no undertaking or assurance on the part of opposite party to deliver the vehicle within two weeks. More over complainant is entitled only for the interest according to the prevailing rate of Mruthi Udyog Ltd as per the terms and conditions. The first point to be considered is whether there is any assurance on the part of opposite party to deliver the vehicle within two weeks. Except the pleading and his evidence affidavit there is no other evidence to show that there was such an assurance on the part of opposite party to deliver the vehicle within two weeks. Ext.B1 order booking form reveals the terms and conditions of the sale and 3rd condition provides that “ vehicle will be delivered strictly in the order of receipt of customers payments. Approximate delivery period given on the booking form is only indicative vehicle delivery is, however, subjected to production and supply of vehicles from Maruthi Udyog Limited. The dealer will not be responsible for any delay in the delivery of vehicle due to any unforeseen circumstances”. The analysis of this condition makes it clear that the dealer is able to deliver the vehicle only in accordance with the production and supply of vehicles from Maruthi Udyog Limited. It is seen specifically termed that the dealer will not be responsible for any delay in the delivery of vehicle due to any unforeseen circumstances. Thus in ordinary course dealer cannot be held liable even if there is delay in delivering the vehicle. If there is any separate promise or assurance on the part of opposite party it is the burden of complainant to prove the same by adducing evidence. Complainant herein failed to prove with evidence that opposite party has assured the complainant that the vehicle will be delivered within two weeks. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief except the interest as per the terms and conditions of the sale. The second point relevant for consideration is in respect of the interest for the delayed period. Complaint’s case is that he is entitled to get interest at the rate of 21% for the period of 20.4.08 to 30.7.08 since the4 transaction is commercial. The case of the opposite party on the other hand is that as per the guidelines of Maruthi Suzuki Limited, the customers are entitled to get the interest according to the prevailing norms of Maruthi.The sound term in
Terms and conditions of sale Ext. B1 stipulates that “Interest according to prevailing/prescribed rates of Maruthi Udyog Ltd(MUL) will be paid on all customer payments from the date of deposit till the date of first intimation about readiness of the vehicle by the dealer less 2 days”. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party paid ` 7223 towards interest by way of two cheques. It is true that interest has been paid but the question whether or not it is according to the prevailing prescribed rates of Maruthi Udyog Ltd is not clear. It is also not clear why it is two cheques. Why it is not possible to pay at a stretch. It is the bounden duty of the dealer to make aware the complainant that he was paid the deserving rate of interest and amount. Opposite party in this version, though, stated the amount paid did not say what the interest at prevailing rate was. No documents also produce to prove this point. This is a clear unfair trade practice amounts to deficiency of service. There is no evidence other wise on the part of opposite party. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay a further amount of interest at the rate of 21% after deducting the amount already paid. In the light of the above discussion we found unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in the case of payment of interest. Complainant is entitled for the balance amount of interest ` 17,427 with a compensation of ` 2000 along with ` 1000 as cost. Hence the issue 1 to 3 is found partly in favour of complainant and order passed accordingly. In the result, complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to pay a sum of ` 17,427 (Rupees Seventeen thousand four hundred and seven only) as balance amount of interest and an amount of ` 2000 (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and 1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1 & A2. Retail invoice and quotation issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite parties: B1.Copy of the order booking form submitted by complainant B2.Copy of ledger account of complainant maintained by the OP Witness examined for the complainant: PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
