Date of filing  : 28-07-2011 

                                                                            Date of order  : 30 -09-2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC. 189/2011

                         Dated this, the    30^th  day of    September   2011

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                             : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                      : MEMBER

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                         : MEMBER

K.U.Simon,                                                                } Complainant

Kochamattathil House,

Birikulam.Po.

Nileshwar.Via, Kasaragod. 671314.

(Adv.Shyamprasad, Hosdurg)

1. Manager,                                                               } Opposite parties

    ITL Motors Pvt.Ltd, 24/559 & 559 (I),

    Mothi Mahal Building, Shornur Road,

    Navani, Palakkad. 678004.

2. Kishor, Sales Consultant,

    ITL Motors Pvt.Ltd, 24/559 & 559 (I),

    Mothi Mahal Building, Shornur Road,

    Navani, Palakkad. 678004.

(Ex-parte)

                                                                        O R D E R

SMT.P.RMADEVI, MEMBER

            The facts of the complaint in brief  are as follows.

            That the complainant booked for a  “Thar DI 4 x 4 with opposite parties and remitted `25,000/- as advance.  At the time of booking both opposite parties assured that they will deliver the vehicle within a period of one month. The opposite parties also told that the complainant is the 1^st person made booking of the above vehicle from their show room.  After booking of the vehicle the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party several occasions over telephone and enquired about the date of delivery of the vehicle.  But the opposite parties failed to give the reason for delay caused from their part.  Thereafter the complainant constrained to travel  to Palakkad and both parties promised that the vehicle will be delivered on 30-06-2011.  On 28-06-2011 the complainant paid the major portion of balance amount of the vehicle in the form of DD and 2^nd opposite party came to Kanhangad and colleted the DD. Then the opposite parties directed the complainant to reach their show room at Palakkad on 30-06-2011.  The complainant reached the shown room with his driver and came to know that the vehicle is not ready for delivery. The complainant is a timber business man.  He is hardly in need of the vehicle for his business purpose.  Believing the words of the opposite parties that they will deliver the vehicle within one month, the complainant had sold his old vehicle Mahindra Jeep bearing No.KL.01/R 1679 which was using for his purpose.  This sale  adversely affected the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed for necessary relief alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties.

2.         On receipt of notice from this Forum the 1^st opposite party duly served the notice and not appeared before the Forum and he set exparte.  2^nd opposite party unclaimed the notice of the Forum.  Hence his name called absent and set exparte.

3.         In this case the complainant, PW1 filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A3 documents marked.

4.         After considering the facts of the case the following issues raised for consideration.

1.      Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in the side of the opposite parties?

2.      If so, what is the order as to relief and cost?

5.        Here the complainant filed proof affidavit and stated all the facts of the case.  He further submits that during the pendency of the complaint the vehicle delivered to him by the opposite parties on 17-08-2011.  But the price of the vehicle is increased and he constrained to pay  an increased  amount of `9731/- as demanded by the opposite parties and Ext.A3 shows the above payment made by the complainant. According to the complainant the non-delivery of the vehicle within a stipulated time caused him mental agony and monetary loss.  The complainant constrained to arrange taxi for his business purpose for that he paid `61,500/-.  There may be chances to get taxi for his business purpose but no piece of evidence before the Forum that he spent `61,500/- for taxi.  But he is eligible for the refund of  increased price of the vehicle since it happens the delivery is delayed.  The opposite parties eventhough  have an opportunity to appear and submit before the Forum they were not appeared and no contra evidence is adduced.  Hence we are of the opinion that the non-delivery of the vehicle within a stipulated time amounts to unfair trade practice and hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.

            Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties is allowed and the opposite parties jointly and severally directed to pay `9,731/- (being the increased price of the vehicle) and further directed to pay `5,000/- as compensation and `2,000/- as cost of the proceedings.  Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

     Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. 12-04-2011. Vehicle Order Taking Form. ITL Motors Pvt.Ltd.

A2. 12-04-2011 Proforma Invoice for an amount of 5,14,944/-

A3.11-08-2011 receipt issued by Federal Bank

     Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Pj/                                                                                Forwarded by Order

                                                                        SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT