IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 106/2012 (Filed on 24.05.2012)
Between:
Saji Anthony,
Cherukolpathalil House,
Vaipur P.O.,
Pin – 689 588. … Complainant.
And:
1. M/s. Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Indus Building, Kumbazha,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. P.K. Aboobacker & T.A. Xaviour)
2. M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi – 110 070. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had booked a WagonR Vxi model car manufactured by second opposite party through the first opposite party on 12.10.2011 under Traders Scheme and under the said scheme persons doing business in panchayat area if intents to buy a car will from panchayat will get a rebate of ` 2,500. The complainant is doing his business in a panchayat area and as such he is entitled to get the said rebate offered by the first opposite party. Accordingly, as per the instruction of the first opposite party, the complainant obtained his panchayat license on 28.10.2011 from the panchayat office and submitted the certificate to the Mallappally office of the first opposite party. But the staff did not act upon it till 5th November 2011. Due to the complainant’s follow-up, the branch incharge realized the mistake of the staff in not forwarding the documents in time promised the complainant that he will do the needful and the complainant do not suffer any financial loss due to the fault of the staff. But later, he refused to attend the call of the complainant. So the complainant followed up his issues at various levels of the organization. But there was no positive result. Therefore, he reported the matter to the second opposite party. But they also did not redressed the grievances of the complainant. The above said acts of the opposite parties caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of a total amount of ` 67,500 from the opposite parties under various heads.
3. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed their version with the following main contentions: According to the first opposite party, there was a scheme for paying ` 2,500 as rebate to the traders of the panchayat area under name ‘Traders Scheme’. When the complainant approached the first opposite party for booking the vehicle, they have informed about this scheme and further informed that, for getting the said benefit, the complainant has to produce the copy of license issued from the concerned panchayat along with other documents before the invoicing of the vehicle in his name. But he had not submitted the relevant documents till the final payment of the vehicle. Moreover, at the time of the final payment, the first opposite party enquired about the required documents. At that time, the complainant told that he could not clear the dues and renew the license from the panchayt and he is not interested to proceed for the said benefit. The first opposite party has to forwarded those documents before invoicing the vehicle to the second opposite party and then only they will give the said discount. As the complainant failed to produce the relevant documents in time as demanded by the first opposite party, they could not forward the same to the second opposite party and hence the said benefit is lost to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the first opposite party in the first week of November and informed that he had obtained the license from the panchayat and enquired the possibility for getting the said benefit. At that time, the first opposite party informed that he could not get the benefit as he had not submitted the documents in time. All other allegations are false and hence denied. The loss of the benefit to the complainant is due to the fault of the complainant and the first opposite party is not liable to the complainant and they have not committed any deficiency in service. With the above contentions, first opposite opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The second opposite party also filed their version with the following main contentions: According to the second opposite party, there is no privity of contract between the second opposite party and the complainant and hence the complainant has no cause of action against the second opposite party. The discounts and rebates are offered by the dealers and the second opposite party had nothing to do with the offers and rebates offered by the dealers. The relationship between the first and second opposite parties is as per the terms and conditions of the dealership agreement executed between them and as such and in the nature of the allegations of the complainant; they have nothing to do in this matter. With the above contentions, second opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint against them as they have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant.
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 testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 and the proof affidavit of the second opposite party. The first opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour, but they have cross examined PW1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that even though he is a licensed trader and in spite of his license, he was denied the rebate of ` 2,500 offered by the first opposite party at the time of booking a car. His complaints to the first and second opposite parties in this regard were also not redressed by the opposite parties in spite of his repeated reminders. The above said acts of the opposite parties is deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get compensation and damages from the opposite parties for their deficiency in service.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 7 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A7. Ext. A1 is the carbon copy of the order booking fromdated 12.10.2011 issued by Indus Motor Company Private Ltd., Moovattupuzha in the name of the complainant. Ext. A2 is the copy of the receipt No. 67 dated 24.10.2011 issued by Kottangal Grama Panchayat in the name of the complainant for the remittance of required license fee s for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Ext. A3 is the license No. A5/8588 dated 28.10.2011 issued by Kottangal Grama Panchayat in the name of the complainant. Ext. A4 is the copy of E-mail letter dated 01.02.2012 sent by the complainant to the Chairman of Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd. Ext. A5 is the carbon copy of application under Right to Information Act 2005 dated 06.03.2012 sent by the complainant in the name of the General Manager of the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Ext. A6 is the reply letter to Ext. A5 issued from Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. in the name of the complainant. Ext. A7 is another letter dated 28.03.2012 sent by the complainant to the Manager, Customer Relations Department, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi.
9. The contention of the first opposite party is that the complainant has not submitted the proper documents at proper time for getting the benefit offered during the booking of the vehicle. But in order to prove the said contentions, the first opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour, but they have cross examined the complainant on the basis of their contentions. Second opposite party also has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour or they have participated in the proceedings. But they have filed their version and a proof affidavit supporting their contentions in their version.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have gone through the available materials on record and found that the complainant had placed a booking with the first opposite party for purchasing a car manufactured by the second opposite party on 12.10.2011. The allegation of the complainant is that he is denied of the benefits offered by the first opposite party though he had submitted the relevant documents to the first opposite party for getting the said benefit. The first opposite party’s contention is that the complainant has not submitted the said documents in time which resulted the loss of the benefit.
11. In view of the contentions and arguments of the parties, the only question to be considered is whether the complainant had submitted the required documents to the first opposite party in time. On a perusal of Ext. A1, it is seen that the booking was made on 12.10.2011. On a perusal of Ext. A3 license, it is seen that the license was issued on 28.10.2011. This clearly shows that on the date of booking, the complainant had no license which is required for getting the said benefit. Further, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he had performed his obligations promptly and timely as per the instructions of the first opposite party. So we are constrained to accept the contentions of the first opposite party that the complainant has failed to submit the relevant documents at the relevant time. Therefore, we find no deficiency of service against the opposite parties and hence this complaint is not allowable.
12. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Saji Anthony.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Carbon copy of the order booking form No. 9292 dated
12.10.2011 issued by Indus Motor Company Private Ltd.,
Moovattupuzha in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Copy of the receipt No. 67 dated 24.10.2011 issued by
Kottangal Grama Panchayat in the name of the
complainant.
A3 : License No. A5/8588 dated 28.10.2011 issued by
Kottangal Grama Panchayat in the name of the
complainant.
A4 : Copy of E-mail letter dated 01.02.2012 sent by the
complainant to the Chairman of Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd.
A5 : Carbon copy of application under Right to Information Act
2005 dated 06.03.2012 sent by the complainant in the
name of the General Manager of the Maruti Suzuki India
Ltd.
A6 : Reply letter to Ext. A5 issued from Maruti Suzuki India
Ltd. in the name of the complainant.
A7 : Letter dated 28.03.2012 sent by the complainant to the
Manager, Customer Relations Department, Maruti Suzuki
India Ltd., New Delhi.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Saji Anthony, Cherukolpathalil House, Vaipur P.O.,
Pin – 689 588.
(2) M/s. Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd., Indus Building,
Kumbazha, Pathanamthitta.
(3) M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., 1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070.
(4) The Stock File.
