By. Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:
This is a complaint preferred under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Facts of the complaint in brief:-
On 19.04.2016 the Complainant had booked a new TATA Bolt XM car from the Opposite party, Marina Motors Kalpetta and it was delivered on 22.04.2016 to the Complainant. A faded green coloured vehicle was delivered to the Complainant by the Opposite Party. The price of the vehicle Rs.6,19,000/- were received by Sri. Sreejith, the Manager of the Opposite Party. For this the Complainant had exchanged his Alto 2010 model car which was in the name of his mother for Rs.1,95,000/- and the music system in it for Rs.5,000/- and the balance of Rs.4,19,000/- were remitted by availing a loan from Mahindra & Mahindra. The Complainant was delivered a one year old vehicle by which the Complainant has lost an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Registration Certificate was got only after about 25 days. At the time of taking delivery of the vehicle, the model of the vehicle was not mentioned, which is submitted herewith. The Opposite Party has fully cheated him. On approaching the Opposite Party and intimating this matter, the Opposite Party agreed to pay some amount for this which they had given in black and white. While on approaching the Opposite Party with this paper, they wilfully made him standing there for a lengthy time and introduced the Manager who told the Complainant that they will not give even a rupee to the Complainant, as the matter was reported in the local channel. In addition the Opposite Party threatened the Complainant saying that the Opposite Party will file case against the Complainant and the channel and insisted him to get out of there, defaming the Complainant. The Complainant is plus 2 passed and was in need of going abroad for higher studies and hence the Complainant told the Opposite Party that he is not filing a complaint. At that time the Opposite Party insisted the Complainant to give it in writing through their Advocate for which they demanded a huge amount so as to give to the Advocate. Hence the Complainant has approached the Commission with this complaint seeking the following relief
(1). To order the Opposite Party to deliver a 2016 model new vehicle
and
(2). To order the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- being
compensation as to expenses incurred and for mental agony.
3. The Commission registered the complaint and notices were served upon the Opposite Parties for appearance. The Opposite Parties entered appearance and version was filed. Affidavits were filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1(a), A1(b) and Ext.C1 and Ext.C2 were marked from his side. The Opposite Parties were examined as OPW1 and OPW2. Exts.B1 to B6 were marked from their side.
4. Contents of version filed by the Opposite Parties:-
The Complainant had booked a Bolt XM car after contacting, discussing, conciliating and bargaining with the Opposite Party for which an Alto car in the name of the mother of the Complainant was exchanged. Consequently from 19.04.2016, the Complainant with many of his friends visited the Opposite Party telling that the model discount was much lesser and hence the Complainant delayed taking delivery of the vehicle. The Opposite Parties contented that 2015 model vehicle was selected and purchased by the Complainant for getting cash discount. Two months after taking registration and insurance, for getting more money from the Opposite Party, the Complainant forcefully entered the Opposite Party’s show room and threatened the staff of the Opposite Party. The offer letter was got signed by the Complainant threatening the staff of the Opposite Party which has no basis. The staff who signed the paper has no connection as to the sale or transactions and such documents have no relation to the Opposite Parties. The Complainant gave wrong news in the channel and defamed the reputation of the Opposite Parties. Against this wrong doing, the Opposite Parties had forwarded an Advocate’s notice to the Complainant which was not responded by the Complainant. All other allegations of the Complainant are denied by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant is trying to misuse the Consumer Protection Act with a view to earn undue gain from the Opposite Parties and hence the opposite Parties prays the Commission to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost of the Opposite Parties.
5. After a detailed perusal of the complaint, version, affidavits, documents marked, Commission Reports and the depositions given by the parties in oral evidence, the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
(1). Whether there has been any deficiency in service or unfair trade
practice from the side of the Opposite Parties?.
(2). If so, whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation?
(3). If so, whether the Complainant has the right to get cost of the
complaint?
6. Point No.1:- It is the admitted fact that the Complainant had purchased a TATA Bolt XM car from the Opposite Parties. The main allegation of the Complainant is that he had booked a 2016 model car but instead of delivering the 2016 model car the Opposite Party cheated the Complainant by delivering a 2015 model car and thereby the Complainant has caused monetary loss and mental agony. The Complainant reiterates that the price that he remitted for the car was Rs.6,19,795/- to the Opposite Party. This amount was paid by the Complainant by way of Rs.2,00,000/- being the exchange value of the Alto car and music system which was in the name of his mother and the balance by way of arranging loan. On going through Ext.A1(a), which is the commitment form issued by the Opposite Party, reveals that the total amount of the vehicle is Rs.6,19,795/- including other expenses. Ext.C1 and C2 reveals that the invoice price of the vehicle is Rs.5,36,213/- as on 22.04.2016 as per attachment-1. No accessories or other expenses were shown as part of the invoice price in attachment-1. So it is very clear that the total cost of the vehicle collected by the Opposite Parties is Rs.6,19,795/- as shown in Ext.A1(a) signed and issued by the Opposite Party. In Ext.A1(a) the Opposite Party has not shown the model of the vehicle. OPW1 in oral evidence has deposed that Ext.A1(b) tcJ R§fpsS Ìm^v FgpXn H¸psh¨XmWv. B Ìm^ns\ `ojWns¸Sp¯n, B{Ian¨p F¶p ImWn¡p¶ t]meokv tIkv \nehnenÃ. OPW2 in oral evidence has deposed that 500 cq] em`n¡m³ Bcpw ]gb hml\w FSp¡nÃ. Ext.A1(b) bnse H¸v Ìm^v AJntejntâXmWv, A^nUhnän Fs¶bpw `ojWns¸Sp¯n H¸v sh¸n¨p F¶p ]dªm icnbÃ. Out of turn service A\phZn¡Ww F¶p ]dª kw`hw Dmbn«nà F¶p ]dªm icnbmWv etc. Considering all the facts and evidences of the case we are of the view that the statements adduced in version and affidavits to contest the case by the Opposite Parties are baseless and unbelievable. The Opposite Parties are failed to substantiate the allegations with reliable and corroborating evidences. Other allegations of the Opposite Parties are immaterial and have no relevance as to the facts of the case.
7. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case the Commission realize that the Opposite Parties have delivered a 2015 model vehicle instead of 2016 model vehicle as they have collected Rs.6,19,795/- and as the model of the vehicle is not shown in Ext.A1(a) signed and issued by the Opposite Parties in a crooked manner. So there has been deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Parties. So Point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant.
8. Point No.2:- As Point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant, he has the right to get compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the Opposite Parties.
9. Point No.3:- As Point No.1 & 2 are proved against the Opposite Parties the Complainant has the right to get cost of the complaint.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed
(1). To pay Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation for delivery of 2015 model vehicle, expenses and mental agony and
(2) To pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as cost of the complaint to the Complainant.
The above amounts shall be paid to the Complainant jointly and severally by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 within one month from the date of this Order, failing which the complainant shall have the right to recover the amount by due process of law together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22nd day of April 2022.
Date of Filing: 12.07.2016.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Shuhaib. Student.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Narayandas. K. Finance Manager, Marina Motors,.
OPW2. Abhijith. Service Manager.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1(a). Copy of Commitment Form.
A1(b). Letter. Dt:09.06.2016.
C1. Commission Report. Dt:07.01.2017.
C2. Commission Report. Dt:03.03.2017.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
B1. Returned letter cover.
B2. Copy of Vehicle Delivery Acknowledgment Note. Dt:22.04.2016.
B3. Copy of Vehicle Data Sheet.
B4. Copy of Certificate Cum Policy Schedule.
B5. Police Complaint Receipt. Dt:11.06.2016.
B6. Receipt. Dt:21.04.2016.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
