IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 29th day of March, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.73/2011 (Filed on 16.03.2011)
Between:
1. P.R. Madhavan Pillai, 60 years,
Poovakkadu,
Mangadu, Elamannoor.P.O.,
Adoor, Pathanamthitta Dist.
2. Sobhana Amma, aged 48,
-do. –do.
(By Adv. D. Radhakrishnan Nair) ….. Complainant
And:
1. Manager-in-charge,
M/s. R.F. Motors (P) Ltd.,
Branch Office & Show room,
Nannuvakkadu, Pathanamthitta.
2. Ajith. R. Pillai,
Sales Consultant,
R.F. Motors, Nannuvakkadu,
Pathanamthitta.
3. M/s. R.F. Motors (Pvt.) Ltd.,
Rep. by Manager (Sales),
Skyline Gateway Apartments,
Pathadipalam, Edappally,
Kochi.
(By Adv. Anil. S. Raj
& Rabi George Mathew) ….. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
The complainant approached the Forum for getting a relief against the opposite parties from this Forum.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows: The 2nd complainant is the wife of the 1st complainant. On 03.02.2011, 2nd complainant approached the 1st opposite party and booked a car Indica Vista Terra Quadra Jet by paying an advance of ` 10,000. The price of the said vehicle as on date is ` 4,52,132. The vehicle is booked in the name of 2nd complainant and opposite parties agreed to deliver the vehicle on 10.02.2011. Complainant went to the office of opposite party for getting delivery of the vehicle as agreed. But the vehicle was not available for delivery. As per the request of the opposite party complainant’s paid ` 2,42,000 as on additional advance. Then the opposite party agreed to deliver the vehicle on 20.02.2012.
3. After that for convenience, the complainants decided to transfer the booking in the name of the first complainant. Opposite parties agreed to transfer the same and for that a consent was obtained from the second opposite party. A proforma invoice for producing before bank was also obtained by the first complainant for getting loan.
4. But contrary to the assurance, the opposite parties delivered the vehicle only on 02.03.2011 and collected ` 7,683 more by saying that price of the vehicle is hiked and complainants are liable to pay the hiked amount. Moreover, opposite parties collected ` 5,386 as insurance charge in the head of ‘taxi permit difference’. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay back the excess amount collected from the complainants. The above said act of the opposite parties is a deficiency in service which caused mental agony to the complainants and opposite parties are liable for the same. Hence this complaint for getting a total amount of ` 33,069 under various heads with future interest.
5. Opposite parties 1 and 3 entered appearance and filed version. Second opposite party is exparte. Opposite parties admitted that on 03.02.2011 complainants approached the opposite parties and booked a car by paying an advance amount of ` 10,000. But their contention is that complainants booked and purchased the car for their business for operating it as a taxi and the same is using for commercial purpose. At that time, opposite parties only indicated that the expected delivery date would be 11.02.2011. For obtaining a bank loan, complainant collected proforma invoice from the opposite parties. But the loan was sanctioned only on 24.02.2011. So prior to that it is impossible to deliver the vehicle.
6. As per the complainants’ request, the booking was changed in the name of the first complainant by obtaining a consent letter from second complainant. Within 6 days from payment of the entire sale price, the vehicle was delivered. Opposite parties denied that they have assured to deliver the vehicle on 10.02.2011. The entire sale price was paid only on 24.02.2011 and in the meantime price had varied. The terms of the order form clearly stated that the buyers will have to bear the price prevailing at the time of delivery. Hence the complainants are liable to pay the enhanced amount of ` 7,683 and the allegation that the amount illegally collected is false.
7. Complainants’ allegation that the opposite parties collected ` 5,386 excessively in the head of insurance as ‘taxi permit difference’ is false. Complainants are legally liable to pay the said amount. None of the opposite parties ever promised for free insurance to taxi permit vehicle. Hence that allegation is also baseless. The allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is false. Complainants have not suffered any loss as alleged in the complaint and they are not entitled to get any relief. Hence opposite parties prays that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
9. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and DW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 and B1 to B6. After closure of evidence, both sides filed their argument note and they were heard.
10. The point: The complainants’ allegation is that after the booking of the vehicle Indica Vista Terra Quadra Jet, opposite parties collected an amount of ` 7,683 excessively by saying that price of the vehicle is hiked and further collected ` 5,386 illegally in the head of ‘taxi permit difference’ and the delivery of the vehicle is delayed as against the assurance given by the opposite parties. According to the complainants, the above said acts of the opposite parties are unfair trade practice and deficiency in service Hence opposite parties are liable to the complainants.
11. In order to prove the complainants’ case, the first complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 toA4. Ext. A1 is the order booking form dated 03.02.2011 issued by the opposite parties. Ext. A2 is the proforma invoice dated 03.02.2011 issued by the opposite parties. Ext. A3 is the proforma invoice dated 16.02.2011 issued by the opposite parties and Ext. A4 is the details regarding payment dated 02.03.2011 given by the opposite parties.
12. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that within 6 days from payment of the entire sale consideration, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant. The buyer will have to bear the price prevailing at the time of delivery as per the order booking form. Since the vehicle is purchased for using it as a taxi, complainants are legally liable to pay the insurance. None of the opposite parties ever promised for free insurance to taxi permit vehicle. Hence the allegations are baseless. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
13. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the opposite parties 1 and 3 filed a proof affidavit in lieu of their chief examination along with 6 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, first opposite party was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. B1 to B6. Ext. B1 is the order booking form dated 03.02.2011. Ext. B2 is the ledger account for the period from 1st February 2011 to 31st March 2011. Ext. B3 is the letter dated 16.02.2011 sent by the second complainant to the third opposite party to transfer the booking in the name of the first complainant. Ext. B4 is the price list as on January 2011. Ext. B5 is the price list as on 12th February 2011 and Ext. B6 is the list of sale of vehicle from 01.02.2011 to 12.03.2011.
14. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. The first allegation is with regard to the non-delivery of the vehicle on the assured date. Second complainant booked the vehicle on 03.02.2011, then the opposite parties only indicate that the expected delivery date would be 11.02.2011. For full payment they wanted to avail a loan from Co-operative Bank. Their loan was sanctioned only on 24.02.2011. While in the cross examination of PW1, he admits that the loan was sanctioned only on 24.02.2011. Ext.B2 ledger account also shows that the loan amount was credited to the opposite parties’ account only on 25.02.2011. Hence it was not possible to deliver the vehicle prior to full payment. So we find that there is no merit in the contention of the opposite parties regarding non-delivery of the vehicle on the assured date.
15. The second allegation is with regard to ` 7,683 which was illegally collected by the opposite parties. Complainants paid the entire sale price only on 24.02.2011. Then the vehicle price was enhanced. In the order booking form i.e. Ext. B1 it is clearly stated that prices may change without notice and that the buyers will have to bear the price prevailing at the time of delivery. Hence the complainants are liable to pay the enhanced price and opposite parties are not in a position to sell the vehicle at a price below the price prevailing at the time of sale. Hence this allegation is also found against the complainants.
16. The third allegation is with regard to the collection of ` 5,386 as ‘taxi permit difference’, even though opposite parties offered free insurance. In this connection, opposite parties admitted that the company offered free insurance to vehicles that have been purchased for private use. Opposite parties’ contention is that if the vehicle is purchased for taxi purpose, the insurance charge is different from private car. The difference of the said charge is to be paid by the purchaser. While cross examination of PW1 he deposed that “ImÀ hm§n-bXv kz´w Bh-iy-¯n\pw aI-\v sXmgn-embn aäv ka-b-§-fn taxi Bbn D]-tbm-Kn-¡m-\p-amWv”. Thus the complainants are legally liable to pay the same. Therefore, the allegation of the complainants that the opposite parties collected an excess amount of ` 5,386 is also not sustainable. Therefore, we find no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties and hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
17. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of March, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants:
PW1 : P.R. Madhavan Pillai.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 : Order booking form dated 03.02.2011 issued by the opposite
parties.
A2 : Proforma invoice dated 03.02.2011 issued by the opposite
parties.
A3 : Proforma invoice dated 16.02.2011 issued by the opposite
parties.
A4 : Details regarding payment dated 02.03.2011 given by the
opposite parties.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Joseph. M. Joy.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Order booking form dated 03.02.2011.
B2 : Ledger account for the period from 1st February 2011 to 31st
March 2011.
B3 : Letter dated 16.02.2011 sent by the second complainant to the
third opposite party.
B4 : Price list as on January 2011.
B5 : Price list as on 12th February 2011.
B6 : List of sale of vehicle from 01.02.2011 to 12.03.2011.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) P.R. Madhavan Pillai, Poovakkadu, Mangadu,
Elamannoor.P.O., Adoor, Pathanamthitta Dist.
(2) Manager-in-charge, M/s. R.F. Motors (P) Ltd.,
Branch Office & Showroom, Nannuvakkadu, Pathanamthitta.
(3) Ajith. R. Pillai, Sales Consultant, R.F. Motors, Nannuvakkadu,
Pathanamthitta.
(4) Manager (Sales), M/s. R.F. Motors (Pvt.) Ltd.,
Skyline Gateway Apartments, Pathadipalam,
Edappally,Kochi.
(5) The Stock File.
