O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows. 1st opposite party is the General Manager and 2nd opposite party is the Branch Manager of Mohandas Motors Pvt. Ltd. Opposite parties sales executive promised the complainant to deliver the vehicle within one month. So the complainant placed an order for a TATA SUMO GOLD GX by remitting Rs.5,000/- as advance amount. Thereafter on 10-12-2014 complainant had paid Rs.4,30,000/- to the opposite parties. Opposite parties convinced the complainant that vehicle is ready for delivery therefore complainant availed Rs.3,50,000/- as loan from Sundaram Finance which was credited to the account of the opposite parties on 17-02-2014. Complainant remitted the full amount due to the assurance given by the opposite parties that vehicle should be delivered within 20th February. Moreover, complainant had sold his old vehicle for less amount believing their words and complainant hired vehicle for his traveling as the vehicle was delivered only on 20-03-2014. Complainant approached the opposite parties for redressing his grievances and sent notice to the opposite parties demanding Rs.1 lakh as compensation. But the opposite parties did not turned up. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting Rs.1 lakh as compensation from the opposite parties.
3. In this case, opposite parties entered appearance and filed common version with the following main contentions: Opposite parties admitted that complainant had booked a TATA SUMO GOLD GX Vehicle by paying Rs.5,000/- on 20-01-2014. The executive at the showroom had specifically told the complainant that the next lot of vehicle is to be despatched from the manufacturer within 2 weeks and the vehicle can be delivered within a month if the complainant makes at least 80% payment of the cost of the vehicle immediately. The complainant had agreed to make the payment immediately. But he delayed the payment. On 10-02-2014 he had paid another installment of Rs.4,30,000/- towards part payment of the cost of the vehicle. He had again sought some time to make the balance payment since he was trying to get loan for buying the vehicle. Finally on 17-02-2014 he had remitted Rs.3,50,000/- through Sundaram Finance Ltd. But by this time the manufacturer had despatched the load to the opposite parties without the vehicle booked by the complainant, since 80% payment of the cost of the vehicle was not made before the load was despatched.
4. Moreover, after payment of the vehicle cost by the complainant to the manufacturer through the opposite parties, the vehicle will be despatched in 15 days time to this opposite parties in a lot which usually contains 30 vehicles. The vehicles are transported in trailer by road from TATA Motors Plant in Pune and it will take a minimum of 30-40 days for the same to reach the opposite parties warehouse. There occurred a delay of one month to deliver the vehicle to the complainant for which he alone is responsible. Hence there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. With the above contention, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The point :- The complainant’s allegation is that he placed his booking on 20.01.2014 for getting TATA SUMO GOLD GX Vehicle on the assurance of the opposite parties that the vehicle would be delivered to him within one month. Complainant paid entire amount to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties failed to deliver the vehicle within the stipulated time, which caused financial loss and mental agony to him. Therefore opposite parties are liable to the complainant.
8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1. On the basis of his proof affidavit and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. Ext.A1 is the commitment form issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant on 25-01-2014. Ext.A2 is the vehicle sale Agreement dated 10-02-2014 between the complainant and Anoop Thomas. Ext.A3 is the loan payment details issued by the Sundaram Finance to the opposite parties dated 20-03-2014. Ext.A4 is the vehicle sale invoice for Rs.7,58,361/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant on 18-03-2014. Ext.A5 is the copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite parties on 05-04-2014. Ext.A6 is the postal receipt of Ext.A5. Ext.A7 is the postal acknowledgment of Ext.A5. Ext.A8 is the certificate from Kaviyoor service Co-operative Bank dated 30-09-2014.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that vehicle can only be delivered within a month if the customer makes at least 80% payment of the cost of the vehicle immediately. Complainant had agreed to make the payment immediately but late he delayed the payment. Moreover, the vehicles are transported in trailers by road from Tata Motors Plant in Pune and it will take a minimum of 30-40 days for the same to reach to the opposite parties. Hence there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.
10. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, opposite parties have not produced any oral or documentary evidence. But opposite parties cross examined the complainant.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties in respect of the sale and purchase of the vehicle. The dispute is in respect of the delay in delivering the vehicle. According to the complainant, he had booked the vehicle on 25-01-2014 by remitting Rs.5,000/- as advance believing the words of opposite parties sales executive that vehicle should be delivered within one month. But it was delivered only on 20-03-2014. But opposite parties contention is that they received the full amount only on 20-02-2014.
12. On going through Ext.A1 commitment form we can see that complainant booked the vehicle on 25-01-2014 by paying the advance amount. AS per the terms and conditions of sale specified in Ext.A1, it is very clearly mentioned that ‘Adherence to expected delivery is subject to timely submissions of documents and timely payment by the buyer and may get affected due to causes out side dealer’s control’. In this case opposite parties are only dealers, without getting 80% of amount vehicle couldn’t be delivered to the dealers by the manufacturer. As per Ext.A3 document it is seen that opposite parties received the balance amount only on 20-03-2014. So we cannot find any deficiency in service towards the opposite parties. Moreover complainant’s main allegation is against one Ajith Pillai, who is the sales executive of opposite parties who had said to be given assurance to the complainant for speedy delivery. But he is not examined before the Forum as a witness. Further complainant has not adduced any cogent evidence before us to prove his case beyond doubts. Hence we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
13. Mere allegation is not sufficient for proving a case.
14. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of November, 2014.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member - I)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member - II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : V.N. Mathai
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Commitment form dated 25.01.2014 issued by the 1st opposite
party to the complainant.
A2 : Vehicle sale Agreement dated 10-02-2014 between the
complainant and Anoop Thomas.
A3 : Loan payment details dated 20-03-2014 issued by Sundaram
Finance to the opposite parties.
A4 : Vehicle sale invoice dated 18.03.2014 for Rs.7,58,361/- issued
by the opposite parties to the complainant.
A5 : Copy of legal notice dated 05.04.2014 issued by the
complainant’s counsel to the opposite parties.
A6 : Photocopy of postal receipts of Ext.A5.
A7 : Photocopy of postal acknowledgment cards of Ext.A5.
A8 : Certificate from Kaviyoor service Co-operative Bank
dated 30-09-2014.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) V.N. Mathai, Vazhayil Veedu, Kaviyoor. P.O.,
Thiruvalla Taluk.
- General Manager, Mohandas Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram,
Pin – 695 005.
- General Manager, Mohandas Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
