DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16th day of November 2016
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 27/01/2016
: Sri.V.P.Ananatha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.9/2016)
Pramod Das K.R
S/o.K.Ramakrishnan,
Korath Veedu, Kazhani,
Kavassery,
Palakkad – 678 543 - Complainant
(By Party in Person)
V/s
1.Manikandan,
Proprietor,
Real Motors,
Alathur, Palakkad.
2.Ajayan
Manager
Real Motors
Alathur, Palakkad
(By Adv.T.Santhosh) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma.PR. President.
The case of the complainant is that he has booked a vehicle named Mahindra Centuro with opposite parties by paying Rs.4,500/- as advance on 21/12/2015. He had paid Rs.40,000/- on 31/12/2015 and had intimated the opposite parties that the vehicle had to be registered on 1st day of January 2016 according to his belief. At the time of paying advance he was ready with balance amount and in order to raise the amount he had mortgaged his gold ornaments in a financial institution and also sold his old vehicle too. Later, it was informed by the opposite parties that the registration process of the vehicle cannot be conducted on the said day and if necessary the delivery of the vehicle can be effected on that day. At the time of payment of the balance amount on 31/12/2015 the opposite party had assured the complainant that the vehicle can be registered on 1/1/2016 and delivery can be effected on the same day. On 1/1/2016 he paid the balance amount of Rs.10,200/-. But he was informed by the opposite parties that it could not be done. Again the opposite parties intimated him that it can be done about 3.30 pm. Accordingly he returned to the opposite parties office alongwith Adharcard but the opposite parties informed that they could not fulfill their promise and returned the amount paid by him. Opposite parties intimated him to take delivery of the vehicle without registration but he refused for the same. The complainant alleges that it was his faith and belief to get the vehicle registered on 1/1/2016 itself since he had registered his old vehicle on 1/1/2011 before. Since the opposite parties could not fulfill their promise as desired he had suffered mental agony and hardship. Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant had sold his existing vehicle and he had to hire private vehicle for his travelling purposes, since he had certain physical ailments as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Complainant alleges that the above act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service on their part and claims compensation of Rs.70,000/- for the mental agonies and hardships suffered by him.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.
Opposite parties denies entire allegation of the complainant. The complaint is filed to make illegal benefits by causing hardships to the opposite parties. The averment that the complainant has booked the vehicle was admitted by the opposite parties. But the allegation that the opposite party has promised him to handover the vehicle after completing the registration process on 1/1/2016 is absolutely false and denied by the opposite parties. The opposite parties is only a sub agent selling the Mahindra two wheelers and the complaint is devoid of the reason of non joinder of necessary parties. The principle agent and the company concerned are necessary parties for the just disposal of the matter. It was also submitted that the opposite party has received the delivery of the vehicle from the company concerned only on 30/12/2015 and as requested by the complainant on 30/12/2015 they had submitted all the required papers for the registration on 31-12-2015 itself before the RTO concerned. But the officer concerned has completed the formalities of registration on late evening on 1/1/2016 and handed over the papers concerned on 2/1/2016 only. Opposite party has informed the complainant that it was caused due to the delay from the side of RTO concerned, but he used utter filthy words and started shouting and tried to assault the staff of the opposite party’s firm along with his people. So the complainant was forced to issue a letter and has handed over the money that has been received from him on that day itself. The complainant has received the same after getting convinced regarding the delay occurred from the side of RTO. It was further submitted that the opposite parties has sustained heavy loss due to the complainant. Believing the words of the complainant, opposite parties had already remitted the tax amount, insurance amount and registration charges in the name of the complainant and has underwent mental agony and hardships due to the irresponsible behavior of the complainant. The opposite party has met with heavy loss for changing the insurance, tax and registration formalities to sell the said vehicle again to another party. So the complaint had to be dismissed with the cost of opposite parties.
Complainant filed chief affidavits along with documents. Original of the Ext.A6 documents was produced and it was verified and returned by substituting the photocopy. Opposite party filed application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. Application was allowed and complainant was cross examined as PW 1. Ext.A1 to A6 was marked from the part of the complainant. Ext.A2 to A5 was marked with objection. Opposite party also filed affidavit alongwith documents. Complainant filed application for cause production of original documents by the opposite party. Opposite party filed counter to the application stating that the said documents are with the principle agent and hence it cannot be produced. Opposite parties documents was marked as Ext.B1 to B3.
Evidence was closed and matter was heard.
Issues for consideration
1. Whether the compliant is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3. If so what is the relief?
Issue No.1
According to the opposite parties they are only the sub agent and the principle agent along with the company who are the manufactures of the same will have to be made a party to the proceedings. In the absence of the same the complaint had to be dismissed as it is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The complainant had submitted that he had no privity of contract with the principle agent or he has not contacted with them. His allegation is that he was being mislead by the present opposite parties by giving false hope that the vehicle will be delivered with due registration on 1/1/2016 according to his desire. He had booked the vehicle as early on 21/12/2015 by paying an advance amount of Rs.4500/- At the time of payment of advance, the vehicle was shown to him and he was given time to arrange funds before 31st of December 2015. Since there was no contract between the principle or the manufacturer with regard to the alleged transaction neither the principle nor the manufacturer need to be impleaded. His only grievance was that, the present opposite parties had given false promise which they could not fulfill even after his earnest efforts. In the present context we are of the view that the present complaint can be entertained even without the principle agent or the manufacturer, since no remedy has been sought against them. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2 & 3
The case of the complainant is that he has booked the vehicle by name Mahindra Centuro with the opposite parties by paying Rs.4500/- on 21/12/2015 itself. At the time of paying of advance he got assurance from the opposite parties that the vehicle will be delivered on the 1st day of January 2016 with due registration. It was contented by the complainant, that he was ready with the balance amount on the previous date and he had paid it with opposite parties. He further contended that he had to mortgage his gold ornaments in a financial institutions and had to sell his vehicle so as to raise the funds. He submits that the opposite parties informed him that the registration process of the vehicle cannot be done on that date and if necessary the delivery of the vehicle can be taken on that particular day. When he contacted the opposite parties showroom the second opposite party had given him an apologizing letter and had repaid the entire amount received from him. The complainant further submits that the above act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and he had suffered much mental stress and hardships. Since the complainant is working as a marketing staff and had to travel each day and without the vehicle he had to depend upon private vehicle so as to attend his job. According to the opposite parties the submission of the complainant that the opposite parties had promised him to handover the vehicle after completing the registration process is absolutely false. It is submitted that the opposite parties has received the delivery of the vehicle from the company concerned only on 30/12/2015 and as requested by the complainant, on 30/12/2015 they had submitted all the required papers for the registration on 31st of December 2015 itself before the RTO concerned. But the officer concerned has completed the formalities of registration on the late evening on 1/1/2016 and handed over the papers only on 2/1/2016. The opposite party has informed the complainant that it was caused due to the delay from the side of RTO officer concerned. But the complainant tried to assault the staff of the opposite party’s firm. So the opposite party was forced to issue a letter and has handed over the money that has been received from him on that day itself. Complainant had received the same after convincing regarding the delay occurred from the side of RTO. Moreover, there is absolutely no provision in the Consumer Protection Act to compensate the complainant for his loss of dreams. From the complaint it can be seen that the complainant had not suffered any loss or damages due to the act of opposite parties, since they had paid the entire amount received by them. Hence there is no deficiency of service on their part. Since the complainant has not cross examined the opposite parties the evidence adduced by the opposite parties has not yet rebutted. Hence an adverse inference had to be drawn against the complainant and the contention of the opposite parties had to be accepted.
Complainant had filed petition seeking direction from the Forum to direct the opposite parties to produce the original documents of Ext.A2 to A5. Since the opposite party had filed a counter affidavit stating that same is with his principle agent and they are not in a position to produce the same. Due to the oversight the Forum had drawn an adverse inference against the opposite parties which is hereby over-ruled. The complainant who was appearing in person had submitted that he had certain physical ailments and he had to depend some of his friends so as to travel since the vehicle could not be delivered on 1/1/2016. Since the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation which is meant for protection of the consumer’s interest it had to uphold all the interests of a potential consumer. In the present case the complainant had booked the vehicle as early as on 21/12/2015 itself. He had also stated that at the time of paying the advance he had seen the vehicle in the opposite party’s show room. Hence, the submission by the opposite party that he has received the delivery of the vehicle from the company concerned only on 30/12/2015 cannot be accepted. The complainant had arranged the balance amount as on 31/12/2015 itself believing the assurance of the opposite party. Opposite parties has submitted that the registration process had to be done by the complainant himself and the responsibilities ends with the delivery of the vehicle alone. If that be so, they ought to have intimated the complainant as on the date of advance itself that they will not arrange any steps for the registration process and the complainant had to look after the remaining process of registration. Instead they had collected the papers and had submitted the documents before the RTO concerned for the purpose of registration. Later on they had submitted that the delay was caused from the part of the RTO concerned. At the time of payment of advance the complainant had informed the opposite parties with regard to his desire as well as his necessity for the delivery of the vehicle as on 1/1/2016 itself. At the time of receiving the payment they ought to have informed the complainant that they will have limits and they should not have assured him, that his dreams will be fulfilled. Without doing so, they had committed deficiency of service on their part. They ought to have made aware the complainant that such things cannot be completely assured and there are certain risks while undertaking such promises. It is evident from Ext.A1 that the opposite parties had asked their pardon for non delivery of the vehicle “At±lw Bhiys¸«ncp¶Xpt]mse 1/1/16 cPnÌÀ sNbvXp sImSp¡phm³ R§Ä¡p km[n¨nÔ Hence it is obvious that they had undertaken to fulfill his dreams and had given false promise. In the light of the above evidence the Forum is bound to protect the interest of a potential consumer. Hence the complaint is allowed to that extent. It is also evident from Ext.B1 to B3 that the opposite parties had arranged temporary registration for the vehicle on 1/1/2016. They had also stated that they had suffered loss since they had paid amount towards temporary registration and insurance.
Considering the above submissions we are of the view that the complainant had to be compensated for the mental agony suffered by him by paying an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation. Considering the facts of the case, the parties shall bear their respective cost.
Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the above mentioned amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of November 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Letter dated 1/1/2016 issued to complainant by the opposite party
Ext.A2 – Photocopy of receipt dated 21/12/2015 for Rs.4500/- issued by
opposite party to the complainant (marked with objection)
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of receipt dated 31/12/2015 for Rs.40,000/- issued by
opposite party to the complainant (marked with objection)
Ext.A4 – Photocopy of receipt dated 01/01/2016 for Rs.10,200/- issued by
opposite party to the complainant (marked with objection)
Ext.A5 – Photocopy of vehicle sale agreement between complainant and
Suresh (Marked with objection)
Ext.A6 - Photocopy of agricultural gold loan token in the name of complainant
for Rs.39,000/-
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Ext.B1 – Temporary Certificate of Registration in the name of complainant
Ext.B2 – Sale Certificate Form 21 issued in the name of complainant
Ext.B3 – Vehicle Insurance policy issued in the name of complainant
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 – Pramoddas.K
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost
No cost allowed.
