D.o.F: 31/3/09

D.o.O:31/10/09

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.87/09

                        Dated this, the 31^st    day of October  2009.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                                : MEMBER

Neethi Raj, S/o Shankaran,

R/at Bhoopas Compound,

Madhur Road, Vikas Bhavan,                  : Complainant

Karandakkad,Kasaragod

(Adv.Srikanta Shetty,Kasaragod)

Manager,

KVR Dream Vehicles Pvt.Ltd,

Adkathbail,Kasaragod.                             : Opposite party

(Adv.M.Purushothaman,Hosdurg)

                                                                     ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT

       The gist of the complaint is that as against the booking of a Tata Indica Xeta LPG car  on 4/3/09 with the opposite party, they failed to deliver the car to the complainant within 10 days from the date of booking as assured by the opposite party.  As a result he could not go to his work place in time and thereby  he suffered.

2.   According to opposite party the vehicle booked by the complainant was available with them during the booking time and the failure on the part of the complainant to arrange the loan from the bank was the sole reason for the non delivery of the car.

3.  The P.A holder of the complainant filed affidavit in support of the claim.  ExtsA1 to A5 marked.  On the side of opposite party, the sales manager Dileep.J.Thomas  examined as DW1.  Exts.B1 to B3 marked.

4.   According to the complainant the opposite party failed to arrange the Tata Indica Xeta car within 10 days as against their assurance to deliver the vehicle, when he booked the vehicle on 4/3/2009 by depositing Rs.1000/-.  According to the  complainant ,he was very meticulous  to get the vehicle within 10 days as he was working in Merchant Navy and was to join duty within 10 days at the time of booking the vehicle.  He even arranged the Bank loan with much difficulty.

5.  But the defense set up by the opposite party is that the complainant failed to arrange the bank loan  and hence the car was not delivered to the complainant.  It was the burden of the opposite party to  prove that they were having stocks of the Tata Indica Xeta LPG car with them  at the time when they offered to deliver the car to the complainant.  But there is absolutely no evidence   produced to show that the  opposite party was having stock of Tata Indica Xeta LPG car with them, for which the complainant had booked with their specific assurance to deliver the vehicle within 10 days from the date of booking.  The act of opposite party amounts to Restrictive Trade Practice as envisaged U/S 2(1)nnn(a) of the Consumer Protection Act for which they are liable to compensate the complainant.

       Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1000/- collected from the complainant towards the booking of the vehicle along with a compensation of Rs,10,000/- and a cost of  Rs.2000/-.  Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @9% for Rs.10,000/- from the date of complainant till payment along with the cost of  aforementioned .  

MEMBER                                                                                     PRESIDENT

Exts:

A1-Copy of Receipt Voucher

A2-Copy of passport

A3-Copy of Seafarer’s identity

A4-Copy of car loan application

B1-Hand copy of stock register

B2-Order form

B3- Proforma Invoice    

DW1-Dileep.J.Thomas-Sales Manager of OP 

MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT

eva/