Date of filing : 21-11-2012
Date of order :23 -01-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.213/12
Dated this, the 23rd day of January 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
P.M.Assainar, S/o.Andumai Haji, : Complainant
Khadeeja House, Kolavayal, Kanhangad.
(Adv.A.C.Sukumaran, Kasaragod)
1 Manager, : Opposite parties
Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd,
Indus House, West Hill, Calicut.5.
2 Indus Motor Company Pvt.Ltd,
Branch office, Indus House, Hosdurg,
Kanhangad.Po. 671315.
(Advs.P.K.Aboobacker & Subash Bozz.V.M,
Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The brief facts of the case is that the complainant booked a Maruthi Swift VDI car and paid the advance on 27-09-2011 from opposite parties to give the same as “Marriage Presentation” for his daughter’s marriage to be solemnized in March 2012. Thereafter the complainant went several times to the office of opposite parties to remind them of the booking and its importance. On all such occasions the opposite parties promised the complainant that the car will be delivered in time as promised. But opposite parties failed to deliver the car in time, they did not even stated any reason for the delay. Thereafter the complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite parties calling upon to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss and mental agony sustained to the complainant. Due to the act of opposite parties the complainant failed to give presentation at the time of marriage of his daughter and thereby the complainant has became sorry figure before the public and relatives of the bridegroom and there by sustained mental agony and financial loss at a tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. Opposite parties filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. But the booking of the Maruthi Swift VDI diesel car and payment of advance is admitted by the opposite parties, but opposite parties denied the allegation that they assured the complainant to deliver the car within 6 months. It is also specified to the complainant that the period of 6 months mentioned in the order booking form is only a tentative period and the same may vary due to different reasons. Opposite parties can deliver the vehicle only on the basis of receiving of the same from the manufacturer. Clause 2,6 & 13 clearly states the same. According to opposite parties complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite parties raising baseless allegations. Opposite parties had sent a detailed reply for the same. If the complainant is prepared to take delivery of the vehicle, the same can be allotted to him maintaining his earlier seniority, from the next arrival of the vehicles from Maruthi or the booked amount can be refunded to him. No loss had been sustained to the complainant as stated in the complaint and he is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts A1 to A4 marked. The counsel for opposite parties represented that he is not cross-examining the complainant. Eventhough the Forum has provide enough time to opposite parties for adduce evidence, they failed to do so. Heard both sides.
4. The main question raised in this case are:
1 Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2 If so, what is the relief?
5. Issue No.1
The complainant is alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties as they failed to deliver the vehicle, which was booked for presenting as a “Marriage Gift” for his daughter, evenafter several times of reminder visits made by the complainant with opposite parties show room. Opposite parties in their detailed version admitted the booking of the vehicle and payment of advance. But opposite parties could not deliver the vehicle within the tentative period shown in the order booking form due to lack of supply of vehicles by the manufacturer. In the mean time a labour strike had occurred in the company of the manufacturer and the delivery of the vehicles was delayed due to unforeseen circumstances. No dealer can overlook the priority of booking of any customer according to the whims and fancies of the dealer and if it is over looked it will affect their dealership from Maruthi Suzuki. Opposite parties never violated any terms and conditions nor committed any unfair trade practice. Opposite parties well explained to the complainant that the period of 6 months mentioned in the order booking form is only a tentative period and the same may vary due to different reasons. By this explanation opposite parties admitted that they could not deliver the vehicle in time due to labour strike in the company of the manufacturer. If a dealer overlook the priority of booking of any customer, it will affect their dealership from the company. It can be treated as a clear admission when opposite party No.2 did not cross-examined the complainant and did not adduce evidence of opposite parties. Complainant, at the time of booking the car, convinced opposite parties that the car is required for a Marriage Presentation for his daughter to be solemnized in March 2012. He used to remind the same on several occasions while visiting their office opposite parties informed the complainant when the vehicle allotted to the complainant, but he rejected. Opposite parties are ready to give the vehicle after marriage if the complainant is prepared to take delivery of the vehicle, but the complainant booked same to give as a presentation at the time of marriage. While perusing the affidavit and documents of complainant and version we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, and the complainant is entitled for compensation for the loss and mental agony sustained to him.
6. Issue No.2.
While deciding the quantum, the gravity of mental agony sustained to the complainant is to be considered. Complainant wished to give a ‘Marriage Presentation’ in the form of a vehicle to his bride groom. He might have offered the same and booked the same by paying advance. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant became a sorry figure infront of ‘in-law’ and other guests. Marriage presentations are very important in their community. After booking the vehicle the complainant might have announced the same before his close relatives and friends. The non-delivery of the vehicle at the time of marriage affected his dignity itself. Therefore the complainant is entitled for a compensation.
Therefore complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages to the complainant with a cost of Rs.5000/-. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Order Booking/Commitment check list.
A2. 28-09-2011 Receipt for an amount of Rs.10,000/-
A3. 30-04-2012 Copy of lawyer notice.
A4. 16-05-2012 reply notice.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
