CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing:05/03/2016
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/36/2016
Rukhiya,
W/o.Kammarudheen, : Complainant
Azhikunath House, Mala P.O,
Kakkatiri, Pattambi, Palakkad.
(Adv.G.Jayachandran& P.Pratheep)
Vs
- K.Rajendran,
General Manager,
AM Motors, Head Office,
Varangode, Downhill,
Malappuram-676 519.
- Mr.Mansoor,
The Manager, : Opposite Parties
AM Motors Showroom,
Palakkad District.
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
Brief facts of the Case.
The complainant approached 2nd opposite party’s show room at Melepattambi on 18.12.2015 for purchasing a new swift LDI model car. 2nd Opposite party’s staff Ms.Nimisha took the order booking and collected Rs.1000/-(Order booking/ commitment check list No-38306) towards registration and booked a swift LDI car. Further to this the complainant was informed that the 2nd opposite party have no stock of white swift LDI and they would arrange the same from their Changaramkulam Branch. Complainant was advised to go to Changaramkulam Branch on 20/12/2015 in which branch 2nd opposite party’s staff Mr.Faizal booked a new swift VDI and collected Rs.1000/- towards booking. An order booking/ commitment checklist bearing No.38558 dated 20/12/2015 was agreed. The complainant approached opposite party pursuant to an advertisement in the newspapers that opposite parties were giving exchange offer of Rs.25000/- for purchasing a new car. In addition, Maruti Suzuki company was also giving Rs.25000/- discount for their cars. Complainant was the owner of a 2012 model Ritz VDI car bearing Registration No: KL52 E 2621 and she decided to give her 2012 model Ritz VDI bearing Registration No:KL 52 E 2621 in exchange offer and purchase a new Swift VDI. Opposite party agreed to take the 2012 model Ritz VDI bearing Registration No: KL 52 E 2621 for Rs.385000/- through the opposite party’s sister concern called ‘True Value Cars’. In addition, opposite parties agreed for an exchange offer of Rs.25000/- and Rs.25000/- discount for purchasing a new car. Totally complainant was offered Rs.50000/-by the officials of opposite parties by way of discount and exchange offer. The complainant believing the words of opposite parties delivered the old car and booked a new Swift VDI car with the opposite parties. The 2012 model Ritz VDI car was taken by ‘True Value’ cars for Rs.385000/- as per the possession letter no: 3909 dated 21/12/2015. It was agreed between the opposite partiy and the complainant that the opposite party shall settle the finance at BRD securities and the balance amount after clearing the finance shall be appropriated towards the margin money for the new Swift VDI car. After adjusting Rs.250000/- for settlement of loan for 2012 model Ritz VDI to BRD securities, balance money left towards the margin money was Rs.135000/- for new Swift VDI. After adding the exchange offer the total money towards margin money for new loan was Rs.160000/-.
The complainant was frequently in touch with the opposite parties for the new Swift VDI car but the opposite party was repeatedly telling the same reason that “now stock is not available when stock comes they will deliver”. Opposite party suggested to take a new Ritz ZDI which was readily available but the complainant was not willing to take the Ritz ZDI because she already had a Ritz VDI and exchanged the same for a new swift VDI. Hence the complainant was not amenable for that offer. Opposite party’s staff made the complainant to sign different printed unfilled papers stating that they had to be ready with these papers so that they can expedite the process for Swift VDI.
2nd Opposite party then called the complainant and told her to take a new Ritz ZDI, otherwise the complainant would not get any car. She was also informed that she had to start payment of car loan EMI, even if she did not take delivery of the car. The complainant afterwards went to the opposite party and understood that those papers she was made to sign were loan papers of Indusind bank and they were processed for a New Ritz ZDI car. This incident shocked the complainant and she was forced to take a new Ritz ZDI car. Opposite parties managed to get the loan sanctioned based on the price of Swift VDI. Complainant’s efforts went unsuccessful. But till date she did not register the car with RTO because the show room officials stated that when the Swift VDI comes they will take back the Ritz ZDI and deliver the Swift VDI. The opposite parties intention was to sell an old stock car to the complainant. They were fully aware that Suzuki motors was going to stop the production of their Ritz model. Thus complainant is forced to drive an unregistered Ritz ZDI instead of a Swift VDI. Addressing all the above facts complainant sent a letter dated 25/01/2016 to opposite parties for which the opposite party sent a reply giving silly reasons. Afterwards the complainant caused to send a lawyer notice to the opposite party which was received by them but they did not give any reply. According to the complainant the above act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service which caused her huge loss and mental agony. She claims Rs.150000/-for that.
The complainant further pleads that the utter disregard by the opposite party for a consumer’s desire cannot be accepted; complainant paid full money and opposite party delivered a different car. The suffering and mental pain of the complainant is irreparable .The complainant suffered huge financial loss because she could not carry out business trips on time. Even now the opposite party explains the calculations made for the vehicle and whether the complainant is entitled for any money back or whether she should pay or not.
The complainant prays to Honorable forum to direct the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party to take back the unregistered new Ritz ZDI car and deliver a new Swift VDI car to the complainant. Complainant also prays to the forum to direct the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party to pay Rs.25000/- towards agreed discount to the complainant and also to direct the1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.150000/- to the complainant for the mental agony and loss suffered by the complainant and cost of this proceeding.
The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite parties 1 and 2. Both opposite parties in their version contended that they denied all the allegations in the complaint except those admitted.
The complainant mentioned that the value assured for her old car with registration No-KL 52 E 2621 was Rs.410000/- including bonus. This is incorrect the value quoted by the opposite parties was Rs.385000/- including exchange bonus of Rs.25000/- and additional bridging of Rs.3000/-. The value of the old car has been adjusted against complainant’s new car account. The possession letter of complainant’s old car signed by complainant’s husband mentions the value less the additional bridging support. According to the opposite parties, that the complainant alleged that she was forced to buy a new car from opposite parties was baseless and absurd; as a customer she has the full right to refuse to purchase a product. The complainant made the purchase with her own free will and consent . Otherwise, the complainant would not have made the payments to the opposite parties, handed over possession of her old car to them and provided to them the documents and particulars for registration. After booking the car by paying Rs.1000/- to the opposite parties on 21/12/2015, the complainant proceeded with getting finance for the car from 3rd party financier namely IndusInd bank. The delivery order from this bank was received by the opposite parties on 31/12/2015. If the complainant did not genuinely want to purchase the car she would not have given the documents and particulars to IndusInd bank for financing her car. Also the photograph of the delivery ceremony conveys a happy occasion. Before registering her car opposite parties had sought her final confirmation by telephone call. Further the opposite parties had called her husband on 14/1/2016 as part of post sale follow up. During the PSF her husband expressed total satisfaction on all the parameters of the supporting documents and call data to substantiate the above. According to opposite parties complainant demanded them to take back the new car sold to her on the basis of the above allegation; the car was registered in her name and could be bought back by opposite parties only as a second hand car subject to acceptance of the opposite party‘s valuation. At the time of the transactions complainant’s husband never informed the opposite parties that his son who is the registered owner of the old car was not in India; complainant’s husband gave the possession letter to the opposite parties and informed them that his son had signed the same. Later, during audit opposite parties found that the signature in the possession letter did not match with the signature in the copy of passport of the complainant’s husband. Complainant’s husband signed the possession letter with fraudulent intentions, according to opposite parties. Since the complainant’s son has not signed the documents for transfer of ownership, the opposite parties are not able to sell complainant’s old car leading to financial loss to the opposite parties.
The opposite parties therefore pray to the honorable forum to direct the complainant to provide to the opposite parties the power of attorney from the son of the complainant, authorizing her husband to transfer ownership of the old car. Alternatively, the complainant can take back her old car and pay to opposite parties Rs.385000/- which includes exchange bonus of Rs.25000/-and additional bridging or Rs.3000/-
Hence it is prayed to Hon’ble forum to dismiss the complaint against opposite parties with cost.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and IA 243/16 to cause production of documents of opposite party. No counter in IA 243/16 was filed. Hence IA was allowed. EXts.A1 including A6 series and A8 series were marked from the side of the complainant. From the part of opposite parties no affidavit and no documents were filed.
The following issues emerge in this case.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service/negligence/unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?
- If so what is the relief.?
Issues 1&2
In this case from the Exts.A1&A2 it is clear that the complainant booked new Maruthi swift car with opposite parties. It is also understood that the complainant exchanged her 2012 model Ritz car with opposite parties to buy a new Maruthi Swift car as per Ext.A4. The opposite parties could not supply the complainant new Maruthi Swift Car but they gave delivery of new Maruthi Ritz car. Further it is also seen that opposite parties committed an unfair trade practice by telling the complainant to sign printed unfilled papers and by misguiding her that these papers were necessary to expedite the process of getting Maruthi Swift Car. Later on the complainant understood that the papers she had signed earlier were loan papers of IndusInd bank. Ext.A5 indicates that the complainant sent a lawyer notice to 1st opposite party to take back the new Ritz Car delivered to her and supply a new Maruthi Swift white car. The complainant obtained temporary certificate of registration for her new Maruthi Ritz car vide Ext.A6 series. Opposite parties were not in a position to sell the complainant’s old car for reasons cited in their letter to the complainant as per Ext.A7. As per Ext.A8 series the complainant asked the opposite parties to deliver a new Swift VDI car in exchange of Ritz ZDI car.
From the above, he observe that in spite of incessant efforts of the complainant to get a new Maruti Swift Car in exchange for her old Maruti Ritz car, the opposite parties have failed to supply her with Maruti Swift car. Had they taken proper steps they would have been able to deliver her a new Maruti Swift car. Hence the opposite parties committed deficiency of service .
Further we also view that the complainant was made to sign unfilled papers by the opposite parties which later on she understood that they were loan papers of IndusInd bank to be processed for a new Ritz ZDI car. The shows unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties we also reasonably observe that the intention of opposite parties was to dispose off old stock Ritz model car, whose production Suzuki Motor Company was intending to stop.
At the same time, we also observe that the complainant should have refused to take delivery of the new Ritz ZDI car and insisted on getting delivery of Maruti Swift VDI car, which the complainant did not seem to have done.
It is also observed that once the new car was possessed by the complainant, whether she has used the same or not it becomes a second hand car which cannot be asked to be taken by the opposite parties at the original invoice price.
In addition, the complainant got registered by R T Authorities the new Maruti Ritz car in her name temporarily. Hence complainant’s prayer to take back the new Maruti Ritz ZDI car at the original invoice price cannot be allowed.
It is also viewed that complainant’s son had not signed the necessary documents for transfer of ownership of the old car with the result that complainant’s old car could not be sold.
In the light of the above, the complaint is partly allowed.
We order the opposite parties 1&2 to be jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.35000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand only) towards mental agony suffered by her resulting from her non being getting delivery of much desired unsought after Maruti Swift white car and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only)towards litigation expenses incurred by her.
The Order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise interest at 9% should also be paid on the total amount from the date of this order to the date of realization.
This order shall be pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of September 2016.
Sd/- Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Order Booking/Commitment checklist dated 18/12/2015
Ext.A2 – Order Booking/Commitment checklist dated 20/12/2015
Ext.A3 –Rate Calculation sheet dated 20/12/2015
Ext.A4- Possession letter for Ritz VDI (KL 52 E 2621) dated 21/12/2015
Ext.A5- Letter cum Regd.Notice dated 25/1/2016
Ext.A6 series- Copy of Temporary Registration and allied papers dated 1/1/2016
Ext.A7- The reply letter from Maruti Suzuki company dated 1/2/2016
Ext.A8 series- The lawyer notice with postal receipt and Acknowledgement card
sent to opposite parties dated 15/2/2016
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs.3000/-as cost
