IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 220/2011 (Filed on 16.11.2011)
Between:
N. Bhaskaran,
Poovannalil, Kummannoor P.O.,
Iravon Village, Konni. … Complainant.
And:
1. Manager,
St. Antony Motors Dealership,
Kottayam.
(By Adv. George Immanuval Podipara)
2. The Manager,
State Bank of India,
Pathanamthitta Branch.
(By Adv. S. Manzoor)
Addl.3. The Manager.
Tata Motors Ltd.,
(Tata Nano car),
Registered Office,
Bombay House,
24, Homimody street,
Mumbai – 400 001. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri.N. Premkumar (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: On seeing the advertisement dated 24.03.2009 in the Malayala Manorama Daily, complainant decided to purchase a Tata Nano LXBS3-Sun Shine Yellow Car by hire purchase scheme. For that, the complainant met the second opposite party on 09.04.2009 and paid ` 4,000 and booked the said car. The second opposite party accepted the said amount as booking charge and issued receipt of the same on 17.04.2009.
3. After the booking of the Nano car on 09.04.2009, the complainant met the second opposite party for getting the car loan. They informed that the complainant is an old aged person and not entitled to get a loan as per hire purchase scheme and therefore directed to pay the full price paid `1,40,000 as price of the car to the second opposite party and they issued receipt of the same.
4. After accepting `1,44,000 by the second opposite party, they informed that the vehicle would be get through first opposite party and the matter would be informed by them and instructed to contact with first opposite party. Though the complainant contacted with the first opposite party through telephone, they informed that the vehicle has not yet reached and assured to inform him on getting the same. But after the expiration of 2½ years, they neither make any effort to get the vehicle nor get the same till now. The said act of the opposite parties causes a loss of ` 1,46,000 by way of interest and telephone charges in addition to mental agony. Hence this complaint for getting the said amount with compensation cost and interest.
5. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed separate versions. 3rd opposite party has not yet appeared and hence they were declared as exparte.
6. According to first opposite party, complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. They neither given advertisement on 24.03.2009 nor complainant booked Nano car with them. This complaint has a fault of limitation. Complainant’s claim is that his dealing has started on 09.04.2009. Therefore, he ought to have filed this complaint on or before 08.04.2011. Therefore, this complaint is not maintainable as per Limitation Act.
7. According to them, 3rd opposite party has given advertisement for booking of their Nano car. As per advertisement, the selection of allottees through the process using the random number generation technique. Tata Motors will select 1,00,000 allottees through this process for the delivery of Tata Nano car in the first phase (allotment). All allottees would be informed of as three month delivery period. Application for booking has been available from the Tata dealership and from SBI branches. The complainant purchased the application from SBI, Pathanamthitta Branch and booked the vehicle and applied for loan. The booked person get allotment letter from the bank depend upon the allotment of the Tata company. On getting the allotment letter, the allottee has to close the account either by remitting the amount or to transfer the amount from the loan within 20 days. After that, the allottee has to produce the allotment letter, original photo, I.D., attested customer copy of booking application and remits the price of the vehicle by reducing the advanced amount and accept the vehicle. This opposite party is not aware of that second opposite party denied the complainant’s hire purchase loan stating that he is an old age and direct to remit whole price of the car. There is no direct dealing with this opposite party and complainant. This opposite party was authorized the third opposite party to grand car as per the booking of the complainant. This opposite party has not aware of the remittance of ` 4,000 at the time of booking and therefore they are not liable for the said amount.
8. The Tata Motors had acted upon on getting the Nano car application of the complainant. The price of the car i.e. ` 1,40,000 entrusted by the complainant had deposited in the joint account of this opposite party and Tata company. This opposite party informed this matter to the complainant and also produces the original allotment letter, customer copy of booking form, original I.D. and the deducted advance amount from the price of the car. They also directed to register the vehicle in the name of complainant through telephone. But complainant not yet delivered the vehicle as per the prescription. On 27.02.2010 onwards, complainant’s booked vehicle was ready for distribution. But complainant even after receiving the information has not taken any step for delivering the vehicle by compliance of the above said formalities. He expressed his unwillingness to buy Nano car. This opposite party offered the new model Nano car as per the price of booking time. But he neither cancelled the booking nor accept the advance amount of ` 1,40,000. The delivery of car was not materialized due to the inaction of the complainant alone. The show room price of the car at the time of booking was ` 1,87,240. By deducting the advance of ` 1,40,000, the balance amount payable is ` 47,240. They are ready and willing to deliver the car by accepting the said amount with original allotment letter, customer copy of Nano booking application, photo, original I.D. and register the vehicle in the name of the complainant. Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as stated in the complaint. There is no loss, agony or deficiency on their part. Therefore, they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. According to second opposite party, complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Tata motors made offer of allotment of Nano car and this opposite party has introduced a scheme of rendering financial assistance called SBI Nano Booking Funding Scheme (SNBF) to give demand loan to its borrowers for the purpose of making application to the offer of booking Nano car by the Tata Motors. The complainant intended to apply for a Nano car of the Tata Motors through the public offer. He applied to sanction a short term loan of ` 1,40,000 for the purpose of applying for a Nano car, which this opposite party has agreed to do so. The bank sanctioned a demand loan on 15.04.2009 of ` 1,40,000 by collecting an upfront of ` 3,999. It was agreed that the SNBF loan amount shall be paid by the borrower immediately within 20 days from the date of allotment of the car. In the event of failure to repay the loan amount within the stipulated period from the date of allotment, the borrower may seek conversion of the SNBF loan amount to the regular car loan scheme. The loan amount sanctioned was transferred to the account of Tata Motors Ltd. for the purpose of booking Tata Nano car for the complainant. The complainant on 30.07.2009 deposited ` 1,40,000 with the second opposite party and closed the loan. The second opposite party has done everything as agreed with the complainant and nothing to do with the non-delivery of the vehicle to the complainant by the Tata Motors and the first opposite party. The payment of ` 4,000 by the complainant was only upfront charges and not the booking amount and the same was accounted properly to the knowledge of the complainant. The allegation regarding issuance of receipt of payment of upfront charge of ` 4,000 is not true and hence denied. The booking amount of ` 1,40,000 sanctioned by way of loan by the second opposite party was transferred to the account of Tata Motors in time as agreed. This opposite party was under bonafide belief that the vehicle was allotted to the complainant and that was why he closed the loan. There is no merit in the allegations leveled against this opposite party. Hence they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
10. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs and Cost?
11. The evidence of the complaints consists of the oral deposition of PW1, DWs.1 to 3 and marked Exts. A1 to A4 and B1 to B6. After closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
12. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is the copy of advertisement of Nano car in Malayala Manorama Daily. Ext. A2 is the receipt of ` 4,000 dated 17.04.2009 issued by the second opposite party. Ext. A3 is the carbon copy of application form for Tata Nano booking issued by second opposite party. Ext. A4 is the receipt of ` 1,40,000 dated 30.07.2009 issued by the second opposite party.
13. In order to prove the opposite parties’ contention, first and second opposite parties filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. They were examined as DWs.1 to 3 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. B1 to B6. Ext. B1 is the copy of agreement letter executed by the complainant and second opposite party. Ext. B2 is the public notice relating to Tata Nano Allotments. Ext. B3 is the copy of the tax invoice of Nano car. Ext. B4 is the copy of application for sanction of SBI Nano Car Booking Funding Scheme Loan. Ext. B5 is the copy of agreement-cum-authorisation executed by the complainant. Ext. B6 is the copy of statement of account showing sanction of loan and repayment of complainant.
14. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. The complainant’s case is that he booked Nano car by paying ` 1,44,000. But opposite parties neither informed the availability of car nor given the same even after the expiration of 2 ½ years. Hence this complaint.
15. According to first opposite party, they had no direct relation with the complainant. Third opposite party authorized them to grant car as per the booking of the complainant. The entrusted price of ` 1,40,000 has deposited in the joint account of theirs and third opposite party. The matter was informed to the complainant and directed to produce the requisite documents and the balance amount of price. But complainant even after receiving the information, not taken any step for delivery of the vehicle by the compliance of the formalities. They are ready and willing to deliver the car by accepting the balance amount with requisite documents. According to second opposite party, they had done everything as agreed with the complainant and nothing to do with the non-delivery of the vehicle. The booking amount of ` 1,40,000 sanctioned by way of loan by them was transferred to the account of 3rd opposite party in time as agreed. According to them, they were under the belief that the vehicle was allotted to the complainant and that was why he closed the loan. The payment of ` 4,000 by the complainant was only upfront charges and not the booking amount.
16. It is not disputed that the complainant paid ` 1,44,000 for getting the Tata Nano car. The only question to be decided is whether the opposite parties informed the complainant with regard to the allotment or delivery of the car. As per Exts. A3 and B2, the first opposite party has to contact the complainant 3 weeks before the car is expected to be delivered. The materials on record does not revealed that complainant neither received the allotment letter nor given any information relating to that. Therefore, opposite parties 1 and 3 failed to comply as per Ext. B2. It is unjust, irregular, unfair, illegal and against all cannons of consumer justice. It is a clear deficiency of service. Hence this complaint is maintainable and allowable and opposite parties 1 and 3 are liable to return the amount of ` 1,44,000 with interest and cost. Since interest is allowed, no separate compensation is allowable.
17. It is evident that the second opposite party has not responsible for the inaction of first and third opposite parties. Therefore, they were exonerating from any liability.
18. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties 1 and 3 are directed to return ` 1,44,000 (Rupees One lakh forty four thousand only) with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till this date with a cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only). The amount so awarded is to be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will follow 9% interest from this date till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2012.
(Sd/-)
N. Premkumar, (Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Bhsakaran. N.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of advertisement of Nano car in Malayala Manorama
Daily.
A2 : Receipt of ` 4,000 dated 17.04.2009 issued by the second
opposite party.
A3 : Carbon copy of application form for Tata Nano booking
issued by second opposite party.
A4 : Receipt of ` 1,40,000 dated 30.07.2009 issued by the
second opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Vincent Carmon.
DW2 : Shiju Punnen.`
DW3 : B. Venugopalan.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Copy of agreement letter executed by the complainant
and second opposite party.
B2 : Public notice relating to Tata Nano Allotments.
B3 : Copy of the tax invoice of Nano car.
B4 : Copy of application for sanction of SBI Nano Car Booking
Funding Scheme Loan.
B5 : Copy of agreement-cum-authorisation executed by the
complainant.
B6 : Copy of statement of account showing sanction of loan
and repayment of complainant.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) N. Bhaskaran, Poovannalil, Kummannoor P.O.,
Iravon Village, Konni.
(2) Manager, St. Antony Motors Dealership, Kottayam.
(3) The Manager, State Bank of India,
Pathanamthitta Branch.
(4) The Manager, Tata Motors Ltd., (Tata Nano car),
Registered Office, Bombay House,
24, Homimody street, Mumbai – 400 001.
(5) The Stock File.
