BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

 Date of filing :  02.04.2014

                                                                                              Date of order : 29.04.2017

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                    President

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                  Member,

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                        Member.

                            CC.No.269/2014

                                   Between

O R D E R

Beena Kumari V.K.   Member 

1)     A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

         The 1^st complainant a physical education teacher had booked a Renault Scala RXL model car on 22.12.2013 by paying an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party dealer the total value of the car was Rs.907,057/- and the ex-show room price was 896,100/- only.  The 1^st complainant has availed vehicle loan of Rs.700,000/- from SBT, Kolenchery which loan was arranged by the 2^nd opposite party.  It is contended that on payment of the value of the car, the 2^nd opposite party failed to deliver the car with required specification on the agreed date ie., on 04.01.2014.  Thereafter the 1^st complainant tried to contact the 2^nd opposite party and he could contact the team leader of the 2^nd opposite party who required the 1^st complainant to make payment for the extra fittings of fog lamps and parking sensor and on 18.01.2014 the 1^st complainant visited the show room of the 2^nd opposite party and found that the vehicle was 2013 model without fog lamps and parking sensor.   Dissatisfied with the service offered by the 2^nd opposite party, the 1^st complainant decided to cancel the booking and issued a letter of cancellation through his son on the very same day.  Thereafter the 1^st complainant had received a letter dated 20.01.2014 from the 2^nd opposite party stating that the vehicle was registered temporarily in the name of the 2^nd complainant, the son of the 1^st complainant and the same was ready for delivery since 04.01.2014.  The 1^st complainant alleged that the vehicle registered in the name of his son was not the model booked by him, that the old model vehicle had mileage less than 17 kms per litre, that in the policy document it was falsely stated that the vehicle was hypothecated to SBT, East Fort, Thrichur branch, that the above act of the 2^nd opposite party amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore, the 1^st complainant caused to issue a notice dated 14.02.2014 calling upon the opposite parties to repay the entire amount paid by the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. thereon.  The 1^st complainant also demanded Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainants along with costs and this complaint is filed on 02.04.2014 seeking orders from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund the entire amount collected from the complainants and from the SBT, Kolenchery with 18% interest p.a. from the date of payment, to pay Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and the inconvenience suffered by the complainant along with costs of the proceedings.

2)     Notices were issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties filed their version in response to the notices served on them.

3)     Version of the 1^st opposite party.

        It is submitted by the 1^st opposite party – M/s. Renault India Pvt Ltd, Chennai that the 1^st opposite party have no direct knowledge of the averments in the complaint, that there is absolutely no averment anywhere in the complaint that there was deficiency in service on the party of the 1^st opposite party.  Hence the 1^st opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

4)     Version of the 2^nd opposite party

        It is true that on 22.12.2013 the 1^st complainant had booked a Renault Scala RXL Model car after personally inspecting the vehicle and after being convinced of the fact that the vehicle was not provided with fog lights.  It was also informed that the manufacturer would refuse warranty if fog lamps are fitted to the vehicle.  On 29.12.2013 the 1^st complainant requested that booking made in his name be changed to that of his son the 2^nd complainant.  Accordingly necessary changes were made in the Booking Form and the vehicle was temporarily registered in the name of the 2^nd complainant on 03.01.2014.  The vehicle was bearing chasis No.MEEAHBA 41 DA 010424 and was having engine No.K9KE424E 038926.  On the very same day ie., on 03.01.2014 insurance coverage was also obtained from M/s.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.  The above facts were informed and the complainants were requested to take delivery of the vehicle since it was ready for delivery as on 04.01.2014 and a registered letter dated 20.01.2014 was also issued stating that the temporary registration number assigned to the vehicle was TPKL07 BGTEMP9867 and requesting the 1^st complainant to take possession of the car at the earliest.  It was also informed that the front and rear parking sensors were fitted to the vehicle and that the 2^nd opposite party was ready to fit the fog lights on payment basis.  But the complainants did not take delivery of the vehicle for reasons best known to them.  The 2^nd opposite party did not receive any response to the letter dated 20.01.2014, instead they received a notice dated 14.02.2014.  It is also submitted that no cancellation letter was entrusted with any of the offers of the 2^nd opposite party, that the complainants failed to issue any instruction regarding fitment of fog lamps on payment basis as on 20.01.2014, that the vehicle shown to the 1s complainant was an October, 2013 model and not an old model as alleged by the 1^st complainant, that the covering note issued by the Oriental Insurance Company clearly showed that the vehicle was hypothecated to SBT, Kolenchery, that the mileage of 21.6 kms per litre could be obtained under normal conditions and mileage may vary from vehicle to vehicle depending upon the driving habits, condition of the road and tyres, load of the vehicle etc.  It is further submitted the reluctance on the part of the complainants to take delivery of the car, had actual caused loss to the 2^nd opposite party and an amount of Rs.1,13,480/- was paid in the previous financial year towards VAT against invoice issued cannot be obtained after 90 days from the date of invoice and the 2^nd opposite party stands to lose the amount spent for fitting front and rear parking sensor, the amount paid towards insurance premium etc. Moreover, the RTO will permit cancellation of temporarily registered vehicle only when there is a manufacturing defect in the said vehicle or in case of an accident to the vehicle with supporting documents from the police authorities.  It is contended by the 2^nd opposite party that in the absence of any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and in the absence of any evidence to show that the 2^nd opposite party had inflicted any mental agony or inconvenience to the complainants, they are not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party therefore prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

5)     The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

1.       Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service or unfair on the part of the opposite parties?

2.       Whether the opposite parties are liable to refund the entire amount paid to the 2^nd opposite party towards the price of the car by the 1^st complainant, with interest thereon?

3.       Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony or inconvenience, if any, suffered by the complainants along with costs of the proceedings?

6)       The evidence in this case consisted of the oral evidence adduced by the 1^st complainant as PW1 and the documentary evidences furnished by the complainants which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A26.  The 2^nd opposite party adduced oral evidence through their witness DW1 and the documentary evidences furnished by the opposite parties which were marked as Exbt. B1 and B2.

7)       Both the parties were heard on 10.03.2017 and this complaint is disposed as under stated below:

8)       Issue No. (i):

          The 1^st complainant contended that he had booked a Renault Scala RXL model car on 22.12.2013 lured by the Exbt. A1 advertisement published in Malayala Manorama daily News Paper on 20.12.2013.  The Exbt. A2 price list of Renault cars showed that the price of the above model car was Rs.10.05,012/-.  An advance amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the 1^st complainant vide cheque.  It is submitted by the 1^st complainant that the 2^nd opposite party had assured the fog lamps shall be fitted to the vehicle on payment of Rs.8,220/- towards the price of the fog lamps.  The 1^st complainant had availed a vehicle loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from SBT, Kolenchery as evidence by Exbt. A6 account statement of the complainant dated 01.02.2014 for the period 31.12.2013 to 01.02.2014.  It is submitted by the 1^st complainant that the balance amount was paid on 03.01.2014 as revealed by Exbt. A7 account statement of the 1^st complainant dated 01.02.2014 issued by SBT, Kolenchery branch.  The case of the 1^st complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party failed to deliver the car with required specifications on 04.01.2014.  It is pertinent to note that the complainant submitted that on 08.01.2014 the 2^nd opposite party required the 1^st complainant to make payment for the extra fittings.  Thereafter on 18.01.2014 the 2^nd complainant issued a letter to the 2^nd opposite party requesting to cancel the booking as evidenced by Exbt. A9 letter dated 18.01.2014.  But the above Exbt. A9 letter not seen addressed to anybody and complainants have not adduced any evidence before the Forum in token of having received the said letter by the 2^nd opposite party.  Exbt. A11 and Exbt. B1 are the copies of the very same letter dated 20.01.2014 wherein it was informed by the 2^nd opposite party that the subject car had been temporarily registered in the name of the 1^st complainant’s son, the 2^nd complainant, that the car was ready for delivery since 04.01.2014, that the temporary registration no. assigned to the vehicle was TPKL 07 BG TEMP 9867 and the 2^nd opposite also requested the 1^st complainant to take delivery of the vehicle at the earliest.  The 1^st complainant contended that he had not signed Form 20 inorder to register the vehicle.  The Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party submitted vide the Exbt. A20 counter affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party and at the time of hearing of the complaint that it is not mandatory to get the signature of the owner of the vehicle in Form 20 for taking ‘temporary’ registration. The complainant could not prove otherwise.  It is seen that value of the car was paid on 03.01.2014. The vehicle was temporarily registered on 03.01.2014. Exbt. A18 Insurance policy was taken on 03.01.2014 itself, that the complainant was informed vide Exbt. A11 and Exbt, B1 that the vehicle was ready for delivery since 04.01.2014, the 2^nd opposite party required the 1^st complainant on 08.01.2014, to make payment for the extra fittings.  From the above facts, it is evident that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the 2^nd opposite party – dealer.  In the mean-time, the chief Manager of SBT, Kolenchery had issued a notice dated 30.06.2014 vide Exbt. A21, initiating recovery proceedings against the complainants.  The opposite parties are in no way responsible for the action initiated by the Chief Manager, SBT, Kolenchery main branch. The 2^nd opposite party has produced a copy of the Exbt. B2 cover note issued by the Oriental Insurance company, wherein it is stated that the subject car was insured in the name of the son of the 1^st complainant who is the 2^nd complainant in this case and that the vehicle was under hypothecation to SBT, Kolenchery only.  We find that there is latches on the part of the complainants to take delivery of the vehicle after it had been temporarily registered in the name of the son of the 1^st complainant as required by the 1^st complainant and if the temporary registration were to be cancelled, the re-sale value of the vehicle would be considerably diminished and in that case the 2^nd opposite party would be at loss for no fault on their side. In the instant case the complainants failed to show any valid reason for not taking delivery of the vehicle and also to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, especially the 2^nd opposite party – dealer.  Therefore, we find that the opposite parties are not liable to refund the amount paid by the complainants and by the SBT, Kolenchery towards the price of the vehicle.  The 1^st and 2^nd issues are decided against the complainants.

9)       Having fond the issues (i) and (ii) against the complainant, we are not inclined to consider and to decide issue No. (iii).

10)     In the result we find that this complaint is liable to be found dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of April 2017.

Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

                                                     Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

                                                              Forwarded by Order

                                                              Senior Superintendent                                           

Date of Despatch

                   By Hand      :

     By Post       :

                                                APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:         

Exbt. B1      ::   Copy of letter issued by Renault dated 20.01.2014

Exbt. B2      ::   copy of motor vehicle not    

PW1                ::     Eldow K. Joseph

DW1                ::      Vishnu Gurudas

                                         …................