By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties either to deliver NANO car as per the price existed in 2009 or to pay the advance amount of Rs.3,249/- and also to pay cost and compensation.

2. Brief of complaint:- As per the advertisement of 1^st Opposite party, the Complainant applied for getting a NANO Car in a low price on 25.04.2009. The Complainant gave ID copy and 2 photos also along with application and DD for Rs.3,249/-. The complainant waited up to 30.04.2010. The Complainant on 2.05.2010 enquired about the booking, the 1^st Opposite party informed the Complainant that they did not receive the application and DD of the Complainant. The complainant enquired about it at Head office and in Bank. Then it was revealed that the DD given to the Opposite Party is already encashed by the Opposite party. The Complainant sustained great mental agony and financial loss and aggrieved by this the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notice, was issued to Opposite party and Opposite Party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the Opposite Party contended that the Opposite Party do not know anything about the booking,. The Opposite Party have no transaction with TATA NANO company. The Opposite Party did not receive the DD as advance. When Opposite party enquired about this, the Opposite Party understood that TATA capital limited, YMCA cross road, Calicut is receiving application and collecting DD as booking advance. There is non joinder of necessary parties in the complaint. This Opposite party not a necessary party in the complaint. Thereafter the Complainant impleaded 2^nd Opposite party and 3^rd Opposite Party in the case.

4. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed version. 3^rd Opposite Party filed version but later Opposite party No.3's name struck off from the case. Later another Opposite party is also impleaded as 3^rd Opposite Party and notice served to 3^rd Opposite Party on 19.11.2014, but 3^rd Opposite Party did not appear before the Forum and filed version. 3^rd Opposite Party is set exparte. 2^nd Opposite Party filed version and stated that Tata capital is a necessary party in the case. More over 2^nd Opposite Party stated that the complainant is not a consumer.

5. On perusal of complaint, version, affidavit, the forum raised the following point for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

6. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and Complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 are marked. Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by Andra Bank to the Complainant at the time of issuance of DD for Rs.3,249/- in favour of TATA CAPITAL CALICUT as per application of the Complainant . Ext.A1 is the photocopy of Ext.A2. On perusal of Ext.A2 document, it is seen that the Complainant had taken DD for Rs.3,249/- in favour of TATA CAPITAL CALICUT towards advance booking amount for TATA NANO CAR. The Complainant submitted that the same is credited in the account of 3^rd Opposite Party in 2009 itself. 1^st Opposite party denied the entire allegations of Complainant. The Complainant failed to prove the involvement of 1^st Opposite Party in this case. The Complainant did not produce any document to prove the 1^st Opposite Party's role in this case. The Complainant took DD in favour of 3^rd Opposite Party and the said DD is credited in the account of 3^rd Opposite party. 2^nd Opposite Party also denied the entire allegations and the Complainant did not produce any evidence against 2^nd Opposite party also. 3^rd opposite Party did not appear before the Forum and filed their version. 3^rd Opposite party is exparte in this case. It is up to the 3^rd Opposite Party to explain why 3^rd Opposite party did not consider the booking of the Complainant even if booking amount is received by 3^rd Opposite Party. It is up to the 3^rd Opposite Party to prove otherwise. Hence on perusal of entire evidences the Forum found that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of 3^rd Opposite party. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

7. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against 3^rd Opposite party, 3^rd Opposite party is liable to pay cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the 3^rd Opposite party is directed to deliver TATA NANO CAR as per booking to the Complainant by collecting price prevailed in 2009 after deducting booking amount. If 3^rd Opposite party fails to deliver the vehicle to the Complainant as per direction stated above, 3^rd Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.3,249/- (Rupees Three thousand Two hundred and Forty Nine) only to the Complainant along with 12% interest from 24.04.2009 till payment. 3^rd Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. 3^rd Opposite party shall comply the order 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 29^th day of April 2015.

Date of Filing:09.05.2011.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

Nil.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Demand Draft/Pay order application form. dt:24.04.2009.

A2. Recipt. dt:24.04.2009

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

Nil.