Complaint filed on: 04-05-2010

                                                      Disposed on: 29-11-2010

BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.1012/2010

DATED THIS THE 29^th NOVEMBER 2010

PRESENT

SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT

SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER

SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER

Complainant: -             

                                                Sri.M.T.Chengappa

S/o.late Sri.Thammaiah,

Aged 70 years,

Residing at No.52, Ejipura,

Bangalore - 47

V/s

Opposite parties: -       

1.     M/s. TATA NANO Motor Passenger Car, Business unit, 5^th floor, One forbes, Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg, Mumbai- 23

2.     M/s. Concord Agencies, Hosur Road, Bangalore-29

3.     The Manager, State Bank of India, St.Marks Road, Head office, Bangalore -01                   

O  R D E R

Smt.Anita Shivakumar.K., Member

     Grievance of the complainant against the opposite parties [hereinafter called as OPs for short) in brief is that, he had placed an order for Tata Nano car vide no: 1123 93071 dated 9/7/2009 through 2^nd Op. For that he had paid Rs.1,40,000/- to 1^st Op through cheque  drawn  in SBI, Austin Town, Bangalore. Thereafter complainant cancelled the said booking since he was not willing to purchase the car. It has been intimated to Op and asked to refund the money after deducting the cancellation charges. In this regard, complainant sent three letters to1st Op dated 2/10/2009, 29/10/2009 and 30/12/2009. But Op did not respond to the letters. Hence, complainant issued two legal notices to the 1^st Op dated 21/1/2010 and 3/3/2010 both are served. Inspite of the serving of legal notices, Ops have failed to refund the amount. Hence, complainant approached this forum to seek direction to Ops to refund Rs.1,40,000/- with 18% interest p.a and damages.

          2. Notices sent to Ops were duly served on the Ops. Ops have appeared through their counsel. Ops filed their statement of objections, 1^st and 2^nd Ops contending that the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- has been refunded to the State Bank of India  who is financier for booking on 29/8/2009 via RTGS.  So 1^st and 2^nd Ops are presently not concerned since they have already refunded the amount to the financier, only SBI has to answer for delay in refunding the amount. The complainant has suppressed the material facts and approached this forum. Hence to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant. 3^rd Op contended that the complaint contained the details of complainant  in connection with booking of Nano car and also got unique identity  as mentioned in the complaint as 1123 93071 in the account which was not known to the  3^rd Op earlier, the amount was kept safely in the suspense account.  3^rd Op is ready to remit the amount to complainant’s account. Hence to dismiss the complaint against 3^rd Op as there is no deficiency on the part of 3^rd OP.

3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint the complainant and ops have filed their affidavit evidences reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and versions.  The complainant along with the complaint has produced the copy of letters addressed to 1^st Op dated 2/10/2009, 30/12/2009, copy of acknowledgement receipt for cancellation, copy of legal notices sent through RPAD, copy of postal acknowledgements which were duly served.  Complainant filed Bank statement of his account along with his affidavit. Counsel for Ops argued and counsel for complainant also argued, and perused the records.

4. On the above materials, following points for determination arise.

1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops

    have caused deficiency in their service in not

    paying interest on Rs.1,40,000/-?

2. Is complainant entitled for interest? and from   

    whom?

5. Our findings are as under:

Point No.1: In the affirmative

          Point No.2: See the Final order

REASONS

6. Answer on Point No.1: As we have gone through the contention of both parties, there is no dispute between them regarding booking and cancellation of booking and also no dispute in this complaint, having had paid Rs.1,40,000/- to book a Tata Nano car with 2^nd Op. As per the financial arrangement, the booking is  made through the financier  i.e State Bank of India and the refundable amount is also made through them i.e SBI who was not a party in this complaint. In later stage, after hearing the counsels for 1^st and 2^nd Ops and complainant, forum observed that Bank who is financier and booked the car on behalf of the company is necessary party in disposal of this complainant. 3^rd Op is impleaded at later stage of the instance of 1^st and 2^nd Ops. After appearance of 3^rd Op, the statement of objection filed by the 3^rd Op stating that the amount of complainant is credited to his account immediately after receiving the impleading application filed in this forum which contained the details of the complainant i.e. unique identity number 1123 93071 is available in the complaint which was enough to trace the details about the complainant. 3^rd Op has also submitted that due to non availability of that number 3^rd  Op could not able to trace the person and could not able to remit to his account  which was unaware to whom this amount belongs to. Without that unique identity number 3^rd Op not disbursed the amount to anybody, kept safely in the suspense account till he received the notice from this forum.

7. Complainant had booked the car on 9/7/2009 through 2^nd Op vide no: 1123 93071. Complainant had issued cheque for Rs.1,40,000/- towards part consideration of the vehicle. Complainant had cancelled the booking and immediately it has been intimated to the 2^nd Op. Even they have cancelled it and as per request of the complainant, 1^st and 2^nd Ops have refunded the said amount to the financier SBI on 29/8/2009 mainly because that amount was sent through OP No.3

8. 1^st and 2^nd Ops contended that the unique identity number will be allotted by the financier SBI at the time of booking after collecting all necessary information regarding the person who is going to book the car. Here, 3^rd Op is responsible to send the booking amount to OP No.1 and 2 on behalf of the complainant.

9. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the records submitted by 1^st and 2^nd Ops, they sent the amount in bulk of several persons along with their names and unique identity numbers to the SBI on 29/8/2009 itself. Unique identity number is enough to trace the particulars of the complainant which has not been done by the 3^rd Op. 3^rd Op here, received the amount of the complainant on 29/8/2009 from the 1^st and 2^nd Ops, but they kept the amount in suspense account without taking any trouble of crediting it to the complainant’s account though list of bulk amount sent by 1^st and 2^nd Ops contained the details of persons to whom this amount belongs to and their unique identity number allotted by the SBI. Even in the absence of the particulars of an individual, 3^rd Op could have requested 1^st and 2^nd Ops to get those details. This in action of OP no.3 was caused delay in disbursing the amount to the complainant. 

10. In between the proceedings of this forum, on 12/11/2010 complainant verified the account and submitted that the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- has been credited to his  account but no interest is paid on the said amount. 3^rd Op has credited that amount to complainant as soon as he received notice from this forum. But the question here is why the 3^rd Op kept it in suspense account though all necessary information was with him? and why it was not remitted to the complainant s account for 14 months?

       11. 3^rd Op kept that amount without any reason even though had all necessary particulars about the complainant which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Though 1^st and 2^nd Ops refunded at the early instance, Complainant was unaware that amount refunded to SBI and SBI was aware everything, kept that amount since 29/8/2009. 3rd Op sits silently without communicating to either of them. It amounts to deficiency in the service on the part of 3^rd Op, hence he can not escape from the liability. For that Complainant is entitled to get interest on the said amount.3^rd Op credited the amount on 12/11/2010 which has been brought to the notice to this forum by filing memo by the complainant. 

      12. In August 2009, complainant had cancelled the booking and requested to refund the amount but Ops took no trouble to communicate to the complainant regarding refund even after several written requests. Either Ops could have communicated to the complainant. It is unfortunate that till the appearance of Ops complainant had no information about the money with whom it is lying with. Retaining Rs.1,40,000 for 14 months with them without any reason made 3^rd OP liable to pay interest. Complainant suffered monetary loss by Ops deficiency and he is entitled for the interest @ 10% p.a.  With the result, we answer point No.1 and point No.2 in the affirmative and pass the following order.

ORDER

Complaint is allowed in part.

3^rd Op is directed to pay interest at 10% per annum on Rs.1,40,000/- from the date of receipt of that amount till 11-11-2010 to the complainant.

3^rd Op is directed to pay that interest accumulate on the above amount within 30 days from the date of this order to the complainant.

3^rd OP is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and hardship he suffered.

3^rd OP shall also pay cost of Rs.1,000-00 to the complainant.

Complaint against Ops No.1 and 2 is dismissed.  

Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 29^th November 2010.

Member                         Member                         President