1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
SRI. K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. Tommy John has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the Manager, MGF Motors, Alappuzha. The brief facts of the contentions of the complaint are as follows:- He booked a Hyundai Santro Xing XL Car on 19-12-2005 with the opposite party remitting a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by booking order No. 10399. The complainant has booked the said vehicle based on the advertisement of the opposite party regarding the offer Under Caption MGF WINNER BONANZA and SAVE UPTO RS. 37,000/- ON SANTRO. As per the demand of the opposite party, the complainant made cash down payment of Rs. 3,51,442/- vide receipt No. 3003 dated 22-12-2005. The condition was that the delivery of the vehicle will be made in 5 days. When contacted the opposite parties had informed the complainant that the company had increased the price of the said vehicle by Rs. 7,000/-. The opposite party expressed their inability to provide the offer of Rs. 32,840/-. Complainant expressed his willingness to remit the additional hiked price of Rs. 7,000/-. But the opposite parties denied the offer. So complainant did not purchase the Car and collected the amount by cheque on 12-01-2006, from the opposite party. Hence this complaint for relief. 2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed version. In the version, the first opposite party has stated that the said advertisement was made at the instance of the Hyundai Motor India Ltd. and the offer was made as a Christmas Festival for a limited period. The offer of Rs. 37,000/- was subject to terms and conditions. It was made clear that the prices prevailing at the time of invoicing/delivery of vehicle will be applicable irrespective of the date of booking or payment. It is further stated that at the time of booking no colour was suggested except the opted metallic by the complainant. On 22-12-2005 the complainant approached the opposite party and insisted for Bright colour Santro Xing XL car, but that was not available. It is stated that the complainant further informed the opposite party that he is ready to wait till the car of that colour is supplied by the company. The complainant voluntarily made payment of Rs. 3,51,442/- towards the value of the car, and that was not full payment as claimed by the complaint. The offer given was for the 2005 Model Santro Cars and the order of the complainant can be fulfilled if the car of his choice of 2005 model is available and supplied by the company, and these facts are known to the complaint. It is further stated that the opposite party tried their level best to get the supply of car of the complainants choice but could not obtain the same since there was no stock of the same brand. The company hiked the price of Santro Xing XL Car of make of 2006, but the offer was not for the new make of 2006 models. It is further stated that the complainant voluntarily withdraw the order and without any delay, the entire payment was refunded to the complainant. 3. In the version, the second opposite party has stated that they are the dealers only for the Santro Car. The price of the car is fixed by the manufacturing company. The dealer is bound by the price variation bought by the manufacturer from time to time. The dealer is also bound to sell the vehicle at the price prevailing at the time of delivery. There is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues:- 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2) Costs and compensation. 5. Issues 1 and 2: - On the side of the complainant, he has produced 3 documents in evidence Exts. A1 to A3 - marked along with the proof affidavit. Ext. A1 is the copy of the order booking form dated 19-12-2005 of the complainant before the opposite party. The booking amount of Rs. 2,000/-. Ext. A2 is the receipt dated 22-12-2005 for a sum of Rs. 3,51,442/-. It shows that the remittance amount was for the part payment of the vehicle. Ext. A3 is the advertisement of the opposite party regarding the offer of the vehicle. Ext. B1 document produced by the opposite party is the initial booking amount of Rs. 2,000/- for the said vehicle. Opposite parties were also filed proof affidavits. Complainant was also examined as PW1. On a detailed verification of the complaint, proof affidavits of both parties and documents filed by their in evidence and depositions, it can be seen that the complainant booked the vehicle with the opposite parties. At the time of booking the vehicle, colour choice was metallic paint. But the complainant was not intended in choosing the Car from the stock available with the opposite party. The complainant contacted the opposite parties and insisted for bright silver colour Santro Xing XL Car but that was not available with the opposite party. The complainant expressed his willingness to wait till the Car of that colour is supplied by the company. The offer given was for the 2005 Model Santro Car and the order of the complainant can be fulfilled if the car of his choice of 2005 model is available and supplied by the company. The delivery of the vehicle could not be given as there was no stock of the car of complainants choice. The offer for 2005 Model was over at that time. Due to the increase of the price of the said vehicle for 2006, the complainant voluntarily withdraws the full amounts from the opposite party on 09-01-2006, without raising any objection regarding the offer. So it cannot be state that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The contentions raised by the complainant to charge the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties will not be sustain and that the opposite parties have not made any false advertisement or false representation to promote their sale. The delay for delivery occurred due to the fact that there was no stock of the car of the complainants choice. Complainant insisted for Santro Xing XL (Bright Silver itself). So, the contentions of the complaint cannot be taken into account for charging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The issues are found in favour of the opposite parties. Hence we are of the view that, the complaint is to be dismissed. Since it has no merit. In the result, we hereby dismissed the complaint. No orders as to costs. Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2008 Sd/- Sri. K.Anirudhan Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi APPENDIX Evidence of the Complainant: - PW1 - Tommy John Ext. A1 19-12-2005 Copy of Order Booking Form Ext. A2 22-12-2005 Copy of Cash Receipt Ext. A3 - Copy of Advertisement Evidence of the Opposite parties: - Ext. B1 19-12-2005 Copy of Order Booking Form // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/SF Typed by:Sh/- Compd by:
