Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/207/2019

M/s Aiga Engineers Pvt ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s RDC Automobile Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s N Vijayakumar

01 Dec 2022

ORDER

                                     Date of Complaint Filed : 29.07.2019

                                     Date of Reservation      : 14.11.2022

                                      Date of Order               : 01.12.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,          : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 207/2019

THURSDAY, THE 1^st DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

M/s. Aiga Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Director, Shri. P. Elangovan,

No.1/80, 1^st Floor, Chellammal Pandian Illam,

Sathyavathi Nagar, Padi,

Chennai – 00 050.                                                                                                                          ... Complainant                

 

..Vs..

 

1.The Managing Director,

   RDC Automobile Private Ltd,

   No.178, Defence officers Colony,

   Ekattuthangal,

   Chennai – 600 032.

 

2.The Sales Manager,

   RDC Automobile Private Ltd,

   No.144, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR),

   Perungudi, Near Toll Plaza,

   Chennai – 600 096.                                                                                                              ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. N.Vijayakumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : Exparte

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to make payment towards interest loss on account of amount credited to the account of the Opposite Parties through bank loan availed by the Complainant and to pay the proposal charges of Rs.25,877/- and the filing fee of Rs.4160/- paid to the registrar of companies for the car loan availed by the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards mental agony, interest loss, loss of reputation and damages suffered by the Complainant along with cost of Rs.75,000/- towards cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant wanted to purchase a car for one of its Director Shri.P. Elangovan and had approached the Opposite Party to purchase a car viz “Jeep”.,  Compass Limited  4X4 )(D) Vocal White Colour  and placed order by way of Sales Contract dated 23.07.2018, for a price of Rs.25,60,000/- including basic accessories, (B-B) insurance, Freedom Pack (5 years or 75,000 kms maintenance + 5 year  RSA, 5 years (or) 1,50,000 Kms warranty.  The Complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- as advance and agreed to release the balance through Bank. The sales manager had agreed to deliver the vehicle within 15 days from the date of booking. The 2^nd Opposite Party sent email dated 01.09.2018 attaching insurance Policy for the vehicle that would reach in 7 working days. Based on the sales contract dated 23.07.2018 the Complainant had procured a loan from Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Aminjikarai  Branch, Chennai-29 to purchase the vehicle, the Bank had released Demand Draft No.897041 dated 03.09.2018 for Rs.25,30,000/- drawn on “RDC Automobile PVT LTD” with a request to forward the originals of the invoice, receipt, insurance and duplicate keys to the bank. The Complainant submitted that the Opposite Parties had agreed upon a price of Rs.25,60,000/- and later at the time of raising the proforma invoice without the concern of the Complainant unilaterally increased the price to 25,80,000/-. After the release of payment by the bank, the bank officials were putting pressure on the Complainant to produce the car keys, registration copy and insurance policy. The Opposite Parties gave false promise and did not meet any of their promises to stick to the delivery schedule. The Complainant issued a notice vide email dated 22.09.2018 informing the Opposite Parties that the Complainant is left with no opinion but to proceed legally against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party had sent an email to the Complainant on 24.09.2018 stating that vehicle which was ordered had transit damage and the new vehicle is expected to arrive only on 26.09.2018. The 2^nd Opposite Party had sent an email dated 27.09.2018 to the Complainant’s bankers viz., Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited who disbursed the fund for purchase of vehicle, enquiring about the methodology of refunding the money paid for the purchase of the vehicle., for which the Complainant’s bank had sent reply email dated 28.09.2018 asking the Opposite Parties to refund the amount together with interest to the Complainant. Inspite of the reply, the Opposite Party failed to refund the amount. On the other hand the Complainant was incurring interest charges on the vehicle loan without taking delivery of vehicle. The Complainant’s bank had also sent email dated 28.11.2018 to the Opposite Parties asking to make payment of Rs.25,84,226/- towards principal and interest to the loan account of the Complainant. However the Opposite Party failed to make timely delivery of the vehicle and failed to refund the money paid. The Complainant’s bank who had extended car loan had registered the car loan with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) remitting an amount of Rs.4160/-. The Complainant submitted that they had been subjected to mental agony and financial loss before getting refund of the principal amount alone, which has to be compensated and the damages caused due to the deficiency of service committed on the part of the Opposite Parties. Hence the complaint.

3.  The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-14 . The Opposite Parties did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice on them and hence set exparte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

Upon perusal of Exhibits Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 it is seen that the Complainant had passed a resolution in its board meeting held on 12.12.2017 allotting a car to the personal use of its director. Accordingly, the Complainant had placed order by way of sales contract dated 23.07.2018 for purchase of vehicle viz “Jeep”4X4 (D) Vocal White Colour at a final cost of Rs.25,60,000/- which was agreed to be delivered within 15 days from the date of booking, wherein the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque dated 25.07.2018. Pursuant to the sales contract the Opposite Party had issued an email dated 14.08.2018, Ex.A-4 confirming the availability of the vehicle by 17.08.2018 and the billing on or before 31.08.2018. Thereafter the 2^nd Opposite Party vide email dated 01.09.2018, Ex.A-6 had attached insurance policy in respect of the vehicle booked to the Complainant and sought to release the balance payment as the vehicle would reach in 7 working days.  The Complainant had procured bank loan from the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank for the purchase of the said vehicle , wherein the bank had released demand draft on 03.09.2018, Ex.A-7 for Rs.25,30,000/- in favour of the 1^st Opposite Party with a request  to deliver the original invoice, stamped receipt, insurance and duplicate keys to the bank. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party had unilaterly increased the price of the vehicle from 25,60,000/-to 25,80,000/- and as the Opposite Party did not deliver the vehicle as agreed, the Complainant had issued an email dated 22.09.2018, Ex.A-8 expressing their intention to proceed legally for non performance of the contract.  The 2^nd Opposite Party had sent an email dated 27.09.2018 to the Complainant’s banker, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited enquiring for refund of money paid for the purchase of the vehicle.  The Complainant’s bank had sent reply mail dated 28.09.2018 asking the Opposite Party to refund the amount together with interest to the account of the Complainant. But the Opposite Parties failed to refund the amount with interest to the Complainant.  On the other hand the Complainant is incurring interest charges on the vehicle loan without physical delivery of vehicle by the Opposite Parties. In the mean while the Complainant’s banker Tamilnadu mercantile Bank Limited had sent a letter dated 01.12.2018 demanding a sum of Rs.1,09,987/- as over due from the Complainant. 

        From Ex.A-12 it is clear that the Complainant’s banker, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank had collected proposal charges of Rs.25,877/-, interest amount of Rs.62,234/-. It was also mentioned that the Complainant being a private limited company, Roc filing charges of Rs.4160/- was debited in the account of the Complainant for registering the car loan with Registrar of Companies.

        The Complainant placed reliance on the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressl Commission, New Delhi reported in 2018 SCC Online NCDRC 375, Suresh Singla Vs Jaycee Automobiles Private Limited and two others, wherein it was observed that if a car or any other goods are obtained or any services are hired or availed by a company for the personal use of its directors of employees such a transaction does not amount to purchase of goods hiring or availing of services for a commercial purpose. In the instant case the Complainant has authorised Mr.Elangovan the director the purchase car for his personal use and hence the contract entered between the Complainant and the Opposite party is not for  commercial purpose.

        Reliance was also placed on the order passed by the Hon’ble supreme Court reported in (1995) 3 SCC 581, Mohinder Pratap Dass Vs. Modern Automobiles and another, wherein it was held that “the delivery of the car within the specified period is a part of the service to be performed by the Respondent. There was patent “deficiency in service” when the Respondents withheld the delivery intentionally to take advance of the pending price hike”.  This order is applicable to the present case where the Opposite Party agreed to deliver the vehicle within 15 days from the date of booking i.e 25.07.2018 but failed to delivery the vehicle till September 2018 inspite of issuing insurance to the vehicle which was not delivered which amounts to patent deficiency in service. Also the Complainant relied on the Judgement of the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 09 SCC 79, Madan Kumar singh Vs. District Magistrate, Sultanpur and others, where it was held that the Respondents where at fault in performance of the service which were otherwise required to be performed by them. The Respondents were certainly imperfect and the same would amount to shortcoming in the quality providing of service to the Appellant.  The said judgement is also applicable to the present case as the Opposite Parties were imperfect in providing services to the Complainant as agreed.

        Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Commission is of the considered view the act of the Opposite Parties in causing inordinate delay in delivering the vehicle inspite of receipt of the entire amount towards the cost of the vehicle and thereafter refunding the principal amount alone to the Complainant’s banker for non delivery of vehicle causing the Complainant  to suffer the interest charges on the vehicle loan availed by the Complainant without physical delivery of the vehicle, affecting the credibility of the Complainant in the banking sector for future loans  would amount to deficiency in service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered, in favour of the Complainant.

Point No.2 and 3:

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties, Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.62,234/- towards interest loss on the amount credited to the account of the Opposite Parties being the amount availed by the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,877/- towards proposal charges and a sum of Rs.4,160/- towards filing fee paid to the Registrar of Companies for the Car loan availed by the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered. 

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severallydirected to pay a sum of Rs.62,234/- (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Four Only) towards interest loss on the amount credited to the account of the Opposite Parties being the amount availed by the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,877/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Seven Only) towards proposal charges and a sum of Rs.4,160/- towards filing fee paid to the Registrar of Companies for the Car loan availed by the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 1^st of December 2022.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	10.01.2017	Board Resolution of the Complainant company authorizing its director to file and defend cases in general on all matters of the Complainant company before any court of law.
Ex.A2	12.12.2017	Board Resolution of complainant authorizing purchase of car for personal use of its Director & to act on behalf of the company for purchase of the same.
Ex.A3	23.07.2018	Sale contract entered between Complainant and the Opposite Parties
Ex.A4	14.08.2018	Email from 2nd Opposite Party to Complainant stating that billing for car will be done before 31st  August 2018.
Ex.A5	31.08.2018	Certificate of Insurance issued by Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd
Ex.A6	01.09.2018	Email from 2nd Opposite Party to Complainant assuring that the vehicle will physically reach the Complainant in 7 days.
Ex.A7	03.09.2018	Letter from Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. (TMB) regarding car Loan of Rs. 25.3 lakhs disbursed on behalf of the Complainant to the Opposite Parties (with Xerox copy of cheque)
Ex.A8	22.09.2018	Email Notice from Complainant to 2nd Opposite Party cancelling the contract
Ex.A9	01.12.2018	Letter from the bankers (TMB) of Complainant claiming the overdue installent and interest for the car loan.
Ex.A10	08.12.2018	Cheque issued by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant towards the refund of advance paid.
Ex.A11	08.12.2008	Cheque issued by the Opposite Parties to the bankers of the Complainant towards the refund of the amount of Rs.25.3 lakhs received on behalf of the Complainant
Ex.A12	21.12.2018	Letter from the bankers of the Complainant on receipt of refund from the Opposite Parties and the debit of the interest to the account of the Complainant
Ex.A13	20.01.2019	Legal notice issued by the Complainants’ counsel to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A14	Sep.2018 Nov. 2018	Emails (colly) exchange between the Complainant, Complainant’s bank and the Opposite Parties

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT