By. Smt. Reninol Mathew, Member:-
Brief of the complaint:- On 27.09.2010 the complainant booked a Honda Activa DLX from the opposite party for a total consideration of Rs.48,799/- and the opposite party received an advance of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant. At the time of booking of the above vehicle the opposite party assured that the same will be delivered within five months from the date of booking and on believing the said assurance the complainant sold out his old Honda Activa Scooter and now he has no two wheelers. But in spite of the said assurance the opposite party failed to supply the scooter besides repeated demands. Then opposite party demanded Rs.5,000/- extra for delivering the vehicle, which the complainant refused and hence even after the elapse of ten months the opposite party failed to supply vehicle as assured. Later the complainant came to know that the persons who had booked the same kind of vehicle even much after the booking by the complainant had been delivered with the vehicle. The complainant alleges that the above said act of the opposite party is sheer unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence filed this complaint.
2. On being served opposite party entered and filed written version denying all these allegations. The opposite party submitted that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no defect in goods or deficiency of service on the part of them. The manufacturer of the vehicle Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Limited is a necessary party and this opposite party is an unnecessary party. This opposite party is the authorized dealer and service center of Honda vehicles. There is no hiring of any services of this opposite party for consideration. The manufacturer from time to time makes offers and floats different schemes regarding the sale of vehicles manufactured by them. This opposite party being an authorized dealer acts as per the instructions, terms and conditions stipulated by the manufacturer of the vehicle. The vehicle in this case is having very high demand among the people and hence this opposite party would not give any assurance to the customers who booked the same. Moreover that this opposite party specifically told the customer at the time of booking that the vehicle will be delivered only upon getting the same from the manufacturer and no assurance will be given regarding the date and time of delivery. In this case the complainant was specifically apprised regarding the same and after fully convinced about the same the complainant had booked the vehicle. The complainant had not insisted any particular colour with respect of the vehicle he booked. When vehicle having black colour was ready, the same was duly intimated to the complainant. At that time the complainant insisted that he want vehicle of white colour. Thereafter when the vehicle having white colour was ready the same was also intimated to the complainant whereupon he told he is going to institute case and he will take delivery depending upon the result of the case. Opposite party further submitted that the vehicle is ready with them and the same can be taken delivery at any time he wish and the such fact was already informed to the complainant. Opposite party further told that all other allegations and claims contented in the compliant are not proper, correct, baseless and ill motivated. There is no cause of action to institute the above complaint. There is no negligence or deficiency from the part of the opposite party and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. On considering the complaint, version, affidavit and documents the following points are to be considered:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Relief and Cost.
4. Point No.1:- The complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A3, Ext.C1 and X1 documents were marked. Ext.A1 is the Booking form dated 27.09.2010. Ext.A2 is the Receipt Voucher of Rs.1,000/-. Ext.A3 is the Registration Certificate of vehicle No. KL 12 D 7197. Ext.C1 is the particulars of Registration Certificate showing transfer of Registration Certificate. Ext.X1 is the booking details produced by the opposite party as per Order in I.A No.204/2011. Heard both counsels on going through the evidence and records the Forum found that the complainant booked the vehicle on 27.09.2010 and filed this complaint on 01.08.2011 ie 11 months after the date of booking of vehicle and the version filed on 10.10.2011. In the version opposite party admitted that the vehicle is ready with them. The complainant's main case is that at the time of booking opposite party assured that the vehicle will be delivered within 5 months. On believing the said assurance complainant sold out his old scooter. The non delivery of the new vehicle within time caused much difficulties and inconveniences to the complainant. But opposite party denied this assurance in his version and submitted that the vehicle was ready with them and they already intimated it to the complainant. In order to prove this intimation no documents produced before this Forum by opposite party. Complainant submitted that no intimation letter received by him from the opposite party. Another point in this dispute is that the opposite party had given delivery of the Honda Activa Scooter to many persons overlooking the seniority of the complainant. In order to prove this fact complainant filed petition to produce the office copies of the booking form from 29.09.2010 to 31.07.2011 by opposite party. Opposite party produced some documents as per the Order in I.A No.204/2011 that were marked as Ext.X1series. But this documents contains the entries before 20.09.2010. Then another I.A was filed by the complainant to produce the Registration details including the name and address of the Registration Certificate owner of the vehicle No. KL 12 D 7197 by Regional Transport Officer, Wayanad. This documents were produced and marked as Ext.C1. On perusal of this documents we finds that the Registration Certificate of the vehicle No. KL 12 D 7197 was transferred from this complainant to another.
5. The contention taken by opposite party is that the manufacturer is not impleaded as a party in this case. To prove the case of the complainant that whether the opposite party overlooked the priority has not proved by the Ext.X1series document. Ext.X1series is not sufficient to prove this fact.
6. On verification of the entire evidences we finds that opposite party failed to intimate the complainant that the vehicle was ready with them, in addition to that the opposite party failed to produce the booking details as per the Order of this Honorable Forum. But in Ext.A1 it is specifically stated in the terms and conditions that the “Prices prevailing at the time of delivery will be applicable”. The complainant paid Rs.1,000/- as advance at the time of booking and signed in the booking form. Conditions are applicable for all applicants, we cannot go beyond the conditions. Opposite party is ready to supply the vehicle at the prevailing market rate. Another question in dispute is that whether the opposite party overlooked the priority of this complainant. In order to prove this aspect opposite party not produced the booking form during the proper period. In addition to it the opposite party failed to deliver the vehicle within reasonable time to the complainant, which caused much hardships to the complainant. Hence Forum finds that there is deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- In order to prove, whether the opposite party overlooked the priority it is highly essential to verify the booking form from 29.09.2010 to 31.07.2011. But opposite party not complied the Order in I.A No.204/2013. Hence Forum finds that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party and complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The complainant is entitled to get already ordered vehicle at the prevailing rate after deducting the advance amount and also the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) for cost of the proceedings from the opposite party. This Order must be complied by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2014.
Date of Filing:01.08.2011.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Rasak. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Shaji. P. V. Branch Manager, KTC Honda, Kalpetta.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Booking Form.
A2. Receipt Voucher. Dt:27.09.2010.
A3. Copy of Registration Certificate.
C1. Copy of Registration particulars.
X1 Series. Booking Details Produced by Opposite party.
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
