IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 40/2012 (Filed on 18.02.2012)
Between:
Abdul Rahim,
Maakkaar House,
Pathanamthitta P.O. … Complainant.
(By Adv. Saroj Mohan)
And:
1. Indus Motors,
Maruti authorized dealers,
Indus Building,
Kumbazha P.O.,
Pathanamthitta – 689645.
2. Indus Motors,
Oneway junction,
Moovattupuzha – 686673.
(By Adv. T.A. Saviour & P.K. Aboobacker)
3. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Palam Gurgaon Road,
Gurgaon – 122015,
Haryana. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had booked a Maruti Swift car with the first opposite party on 18.08.2011 by paying ` 10,000 as advance. At the time of booking, they assured that the vehicle will be delivered before the expiry of 4 months from the date of booking. But they have not delivered the vehicle so far inspite of their assurance. In the meantime, the price of the vehicle is also hiked. The first and second opposite parties are getting the vehicle from the third opposite party who is the manufacturer of Maruti car. The above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and they are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties to deliver the booked vehicle at the earliest along with compensation of ` 15,000 and cost of ` 5,000.
3. The first and second opposite parties filed their version with the following main contentions: They admitted the booking of the car and the said booking was as per the terms and conditions of the order booking form dated 19.08.2011 signed by the complainant. Opposite parties denied that they have not promised to deliver the vehicle within 4 months. The period of 4 months shown in the order booking form is only tentative waiting period. At the time of booking, they also told the complainant that the tentative waiting period may vary due to different reasons and the complainant had also agreed it. Answering opposite parties are only dealers of third opposite party. As per the terms and conditions of the order booking form, the vehicles will be allotted on the basis of the priority of booking and remittance of full payment and the opposite parties are not responsible for the delivery of the vehicle in case of any delay in production of vehicles by the manufacturer. The complainant is also liable to pay the prevailing price of the vehicle at the time of delivery. The delay caused in delivering the vehicle is due to the lack of supply of vehicles by the manufacturer. Subsequent to the booking of the complainant, a labour strike had occurred in the company which was an unforeseen event which also affected the timely delivery of the vehicle. Opposite parties had not violated any of the terms and conditions mentioned in the order booking form and the complainant had signed the order booking form after understanding the terms and conditions of the delivery of the vehicle. So he cannot turn round and say that opposite parties had violated the terms and conditions. The complainant had not sustained any loss or sufferings due to the acts of the opposite parties and thus they have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant. With the above contentions, opposite parties 1 and 2 pray for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The third opposite party also filed a separate version with the following main contentions: According to third opposite party, the complainant’s booking is with the first and second opposite parties and there is no agreement between the third opposite party and the complainant. Therefore, the complainant had no cause of action against the third opposite party. The complainant has not raised any specific allegations against the third opposite party. The third opposite party is not a necessary party to this proceedings. The relationship between the complainant and the third opposite party will start only after the delivery of the vehicle. So the complainant had no cause of action against the third opposite party so far since the delivery of the vehicle is not effected. The third opposite party is not liable for any act of omission and commission on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. The third opposite party is not aware of the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2. Thus, they contended that they have not committed any deficiency of service against the complainant and hence they also prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. On the above pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint is allowwable or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 and the proof affidavit of the third opposite party. For the first and second opposite parties, there is no oral or documentary evidence. But they cross examined the complainant. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that he had booked a Maruti car by paying ` 10,000 as advance to the first opposite party, on the assurance of the first opposite party that the vehicle will be delivered within 4 months from the date of booking. But the booked car was not delivered to the complainant so far inspite of their assurance. In the meantime, the price of the car is also hiked. The above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is the order booking form dated 18.08.2011 in the name of the complainant issued by the second opposite party showing the booking of the vehicle in question. Ext. A2 is the receipt No. 1772 dated 19.08.2011 for ` 10,000 as booking amount issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext. A3 is the order booking form No. 13764 dated 15.09.2011 issued by Popular Vehicles and Services, Kottayam in the name of one Shylaja. A. Samad showing the booking of a similar vehicle. Ext. A4 is the vehicle invoice dated 20.01.2012 issued by Popular Vehicles and Services, Kottayam in the name of Shylaja. A. Samad showing the delivery of Maruti Swift car as per Ext.A3 order booking form. The marking of Exts. A3 and A4 were objected by the opposite parties stating that the said documents are not related to this complaint. On a perusal of Exts. A3 and A4, it is seen that these documents are original documents and are directly connected with a similar transaction and the complainant produced the said documents for supporting his case. So the objections of the opposite parties is ruled out and Exts. A3 and A4 are accepted in evidence.
9. The contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is that they have not committed any violation of any terms and conditions of Ext. A1 order booking form and they have not made any assurance to deliver the vehicle within 4 months from the date of booking. The delivery of the vehicle depends upon the supply of the vehicles from the manufacturer. Since the manufacturer has not supplied any vehicle to them in respect of the complainant’s booking and hence they could not deliver the vehicle to the complainant. Hence they argued that they have not committed any deficiency of service to the complainant and they have not caused any loss or inconveniences to the complainant in this transaction.
10. In order to prove the contentions of the first and second opposite parties, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. But they have cross examined the complainant.
11. The contention of the third opposite party is that there is no contract between the complainant and the third opposite party and the alleged contract is between the complainant and the first and second opposite parties and they are not liable to the complainant for the laches, if any, committed by the first and second opposite parties.
12. In order to prove the contention of the third opposite party, they have submitted a proof affidavit. But they have not adduced any evidence for substantiating the contentions raised in their proof affidavit or they have not cross examined the complainant.
13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant had made a booking for a Maruti Swift car by paying ` 10,000 as advance on 18.08.2011 with the first and second opposite parties. But as per the available evidence, it is also found that the booked vehicle was not delivered to the complainant so far. The contentions of the first and second opposite parties is that they are only suppliers of the third opposite party and they can deliver the car only on getting the car from the third opposite party and they have not received any vehicle from the third opposite party as per the booking of the complainant. They also contended that it is not mandatory to deliver the car within 4 months from the date of booking as per the terms and conditions of Ext. A1 order booking form. But on a perusal of Exts. A3 and A4, it is realized that the Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Kottayam, a similar distributor of the third opposite party had supplied a Maruti Swift car within 4 months from the date of booking. So it is clear that a Maruti Swift car can be delivered within 4 months from the date of booking. But the first and second opposite parties have not arranged or delivered a car within 4 months to the complainant as per the complainant’s booking. In view of Exts. A3 and A4, the non-delivery of the car by opposite parties 1 and 2 after the expiry of 6 months i.e. the date of filing of this complaint, and even on this date, can be treated as a clear deficiency in service. Therefore, we found that the first and second opposite parties have committed a clear deficiency in service to the complainant and hence this complaint is allowable. However, the contention raised by the third opposite party is not disproved by the complainant and hence we find no deficiency of service from the part of the third opposite party.
14. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the first and second opposite parties are directed to deliver a Maruti Swift VD1 car booked by the complaint at the prevailing price as on 31.12.2011 within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order, if not delivered so far, along with compensation of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) and cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the advance deposit from 01.01.2012 till the completion of the transaction.
15. In the event of non-compliance of this order by opposite parties 1 and 2, the complainant is allowed to realize a total amount of ` 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) including the booking advance from opposite parties 1 and 2 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of July, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Sri. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Abdul Rahim.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Order booking form dated 18.08.2011 issued by the
second opposite party to the complainant.
A2 : Receipt No. 1772 dated 19.08.2011 for ` 10,000 as
booking amount issued by the first opposite party in the
name of the complainant.
A3 : Order booking form No. 13764 dated 15.09.2011 issued
by Popular Vehicles and Services, Kottayam in the name
of Shylaja. A. Samad.
A4 : Vehicle invoice dated 20.01.2012 issued by Popular
Vehicles and Services, Kottayam in the name of Shylaja.
A. Samad.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Abdul Rahim, Maakkaar House, Pathanamthitta P.O. (2) Indus Motors, Maruti authorized dealers,
Indus Building, Kumbazha P.O.,
Pathanamthitta – 689645.
(3) Indus Motors, Oneway junction,
Moovattupuzha – 686673.
(4) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam Gurgaon Road,
Gurgaon – 122015, Haryana.
(5) The Stock File.
