BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.961/2008 AGAINST C.D.No.1004/2005, DISTRICT FORUM-II,Visakhapatnam.
Between:
Sri Mohan Rao Patro,
S/o.Appa Rao Patro ,
Visakhapatnam. … Appellant/
Complainant
And
1.M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., Rep. by its
Managing Director, Wagle Estate,
LBS Marg, Thane, Maharastra-400 604.
2. Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manger, Auto Nagar,
BHPV Post, Visakhapatnam. … Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.V.Chaitanya Latha
Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.Shireen Sethna Baria –R1
M/s. Anitha Chandra-R2
QUORUM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
*****
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.1004/05 on the file of District Forum –II, Visakhapatnam , the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that 1st opposite party who is an automobile manufacturer offered to provide the services for consideration by introducing a scheme by name Sampoorna Seva during January,2005 and promised to provide several facilities to those who joined the Scheme through their dealers all over the country. 2nd opposite party is the dealer of 1st opposite party situated at Visakhapatnam The complainant submits that the opp.parties promised to render maintenance services (including oils and filters change ) for all models of commercial vehicles at 3000 kms., 9000 kms., and thereafter at every 9000 kms. or as specified in operator’s service book (OSB) for the particular model. The opp.parties also undertook to render comprehensive care through usage of genuine parts & skilled manpower, prompt attention to contract vehicles, the moment they report to the service station and promised to provide timely & recommended maintenance ensuring consistent output & less break downs. The complainant joined in the scheme and in due performance of his part of agreement issued five post dated cheques one for Rs.12,000/- and others each for Rs.6,000/- in favour of 1st opp.party for rendering the annual maintenance contract to his vehicle bearing no.OR 18 A 4473 and the representative of 1st opp.party duly acknowledged the receipt of the same on 19.1.05. Thereafter 1st opp.party sent a letter dt.7.2.05 by granting AMC no.400046910010 in favour of the complainant and stated that the 2nd opp.party would be in regular touch with the complainant for ensuring adherence to the services as per the agreement. The complainant availed the service of the 1st opp.party on 9.3.05 and 5.7.05 at Gudavalli and when the complainant took his vehicle to second opp.party on 15.7.05 for maintenance as per the AMC, 2nd opp.party rendered the service but charged for the services rendered to the complainant’s vehicle and issued a receipt stating that the status of AMC number is blocked . When the complainant questioned , the opposite party stated that there is some discrepancy in the details, the chasis number is one and the same and the complainant is not entitled to the services as per AMC agreement. The complainant was forced to pay the service charges to the second opp.party for a sum of Rs.11,250.55 and Rs.1,053.25 on 16.7.05 and the complainant could get release of his vehicle only after making payment even though he remitted the payments to 1st opp.party towards AMC. The complainant submits that as per the terms and conditions of the AMC agreement the opp.parties are bound to provide requisite service to the vehicle and their failure to discontinue the same without any intimation is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opp.parties to refund a sum of Rs.12,304/- together with interest at 24% from 16.7.05 till the date of payment, to render the service as per the agreement for the remaining unserved period by extending the period of agreement, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and to pay costs of Rs.2,500/- .
Opposite party no.1 filed counter admitting the scheme introduced by them and the complainant joined as a member and he issued post dated cheques for the months from January ,2005 to June,2005. Opp.party no.1 submits that they have sent an agreement duly stamped to the complainant for signing and return, but the same was not returned and as such there is no valid contract of A.M.C. The cheques issued for the months from January,2005 to April,2005 were encashed but the cheques issued for the months of May and June 2005 were bounced and payment was not received from the complainant and as such the AMC was terminated w.e.f. 25.5.2005 consequently the services under AMC were not availed and the services rendered by the 2nd opp.party were on charge basis and the vehicle was not under AMC after 25.5.2005. The opposite party submits that as per the statement of the printout the cheque bearing no.898635 dt.25.6.2005 for Rs.6000/- issued by the complainant to the opp.party no.1 was bounced and as such the AMC agreement was terminated and hence there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite party no.2 resisted the claim of the complainant stating that when the complainant brought the vehicle to their workshop on 16.7.2005 for attending repairs and he was informed that he has to pay charges as the AMC was terminated as the cheques issued for the months of May and June bounced and the complainant agreed for the same and paid the charges of Rs.11,250-55 and Rs.1,053-25 and the opposite party issued receipts for the same and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 and EXs.B1 to B6 and pleadings put forward dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order , the complainant preferred this appeal.
Opp.parties 1 and 2 filed written arguments.
It is the case of the complainant that inspite of a balance amount Rs.46,452-70ps. lying in the account of appellant/complainant for the period from 25.5.05 to 16.7.05, the opposite parties did not present the cheques dt.10.6.05 for Rs.6000/- and 24.6.05 and therefore there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opp.parties in not adhering to the services as per the AMC. The complainant issued 5 post dated cheques one for Rs.12000/- and others for Rs.6000/- each in favour of opp.party no.1` and opp.party no.1 sent a letter dt.7.2.05 granting the AMC number in favour of the complainant for the period from 18.1.05 to 17.1.2006 covering upto Rs.1,44,000 Kl.Mts. It is the further case of the complainant that when he took the vehicle to Opp.party no.2 on 15.7.05 for maintenance, opp.party no.2 charged for the services stating that the complainant’s AMC number is blocked and he was forced to pay the charges Rs.11,250-55 ps. and also a sum of Rs.1,053.25 ps. both dated 16.7.2005.
It is the case of the opposite party who filed written arguments that the cheques issued by the appellant/complainant for the months of May and June 2005 bounced and the agreement was terminated w.e.f. 25.5.05 and therefore the service rendered by opp.party no.2 was charged. The learned counsel for the opp.parties rely on Exs.B5 and B6. We observe from the record that Ex.B5 clearly states that the cheques have been returned because they are NON-MICR cheques which are to be presented directly to the banks/branches concerned henceforth. It is the same cheque in dispute that is the cheque dt.10.6.2005 for an amount of Rs.6000/- which the opposite party contends had bounced. It is apparent on the face of the record that this cheque has been returned because it has sent to MICR Clearing Houses when RBI has instructed MICR clearing houses not to accept Non-MICR cheques. It cannot be stated that this cheque was returned for insufficient funds. The appellant/complainant on the other hand filed his statement of account showing that there was sufficient balance for clearance of cheque. Ex.A5 which is the statement of account from 1.4.2004 to 16.7.2005 clearly shows that the complainant had a balance of Rs.46,452-70 ps. as on that date. Therefore we are of the considered view that the act of the opposite party in not returning the cheque to the complainant when the reason for the cheque to be returned, as per the memo of the Bank is only because it was a Non-MICR Cheque but not because of insufficient funds and unilaterally cancelling AMC agreement without issuing any notice to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore we set aside the order of the District Forum and allow this appeal directing the opp.parties 1 and 2 to refund an amount of Rs.11,250.55 ps. and Rs.1,053.25 ps. (as evidenced under Ex.A6 bills) after deducting Rs.6,000/- towards the due amount i.e. Rs.6,303.80 together with interest at 9% p.a. from 16.7.2005 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.2000/-
In the result this appeal is allowed and order of the District Forum is set aside directing the opp.parties 1 & 2 to refund Rs.6,303.80 together with interest at 9% p.a. from 16.7.2005 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.2000/- . Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Dt.10.12.2010.
Pm*
