Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/64/2015

Vuppuluri Soami Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Coastal Auto Mobiles (P) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Parishkruthi

04 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                                                                                 Date of filing:   02.11.2015

                                                                                                Date of Order: 06.04.2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY

 

          PRESENT:   Smt H.V. Ramana, B.Com., L.L.M.,   PRESIDENT(FAC)

                      Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L., MEMBER          

    

            Wednesday, the 6^th day of April, 2016

 

 

C.C.No.64 /2015

Between:-

 

Vuppuluri Soami Prasad, S/o. late Satyanarayana,

Aged 82 years, R/o. D.No.2/12A, Venkateswara

Apartments, Tummalova, Rajahmundry.                                                     …        Complainant

 

                                    And

 

1)  M/s. Coastal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

     D.No.84-1-3/1, Near ONGC Base Complex,

     National Highway-16, Rajahmundry-533 106.

 

2)  M/s. Tata Motors, Marketing & Customer Support

     Unit, Passenger Car Business Unit, One Forbes,

     5^th Floor, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg Fort, Mumbai.                                      …        Opposite parties

 

 

            This case coming on 30.03.2016 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Secretary, Parishkruthi for the complainant and the opposite parties 1 & 2 having been set exparte, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

O R D E R

[Per Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, Member] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- towards value of missing items; pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony; pay costs of Rs.5,000/- and award interest at 18% p.a. and award costs of the complaint.

2.         The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Tata Brand Nano Car CX from the 1^st opposite party on 27.4.2013 for Rs.92,000/-. The car was not allowed for trail run by the 1^st opposite party on the pretext that there was no petrol. It was said to be a demo car. The car was delivered to the complainant with no Stephaney, rare view mirror and complimentary items like spare bulbs, fuses etc. The complainant asked for the shortage of items on 28.4.2013. The 1^st opposite party assured the complainant that he would be supplying them in a week. The 1^st opposite party went on postponing for months, then the complainant approached the head office in June, 2013 who gave the complaint. The complainant received the following message “thank you for updating your details requested changes would be updated in system within 24 hours. The complainant lodged a complaint in June, 2013 to supply these items, but there was no response till date. Subsequently, the complainant telephoned the opposite parties customer care service center a number of times, but in vain. Later the complainant got issued a legal notice by an advocate on 13.11.2014 seeking relief. The opposite parties replied on 15.12.2014 stating that, to send the documents in support of the demands instead of redressing the complaint. But, there is no proper response from the 2^nd opposite party, who mainly dealt with the transaction. Finally, the complainant got issued notice through Parishkruthi on 17.4.2015 and having received the same, the opposite parties failed to pay the amount. Hence, the complaint. 

3.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 remained ex-parte despite receipt of notices from this Forum.

4.   Heard the complainant. Proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exs.A1 to A3 are marked for the complainant.    

5.         Points raised for consideration are:

 

    1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

 

6.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:  As per the available material on record, the complainant purchased a Tata Nano Car vide Chassis No.MAT612226B-KK55960 from the 1^st opposite party on 27.4.2013 for Rs.92,000/- vide Ex.A1 invoice and Form-22. At the time of purchase, the above said car was not allowed for trial run by the 1^st opposite party on the pretext that there was no petrol in the disputed car, which was said to be a Demo car. The car was delivered to the complainant without Stephaney, rear view mirror and complimentary items like spare parts, fuses etc. and the complainant asked the 1^st opposite party about the shortage of items on 28.4.2013 itself at the time of delivery. The 1^st opposite party assured that he will supply the above said items within one week, but never supplied and postponed the supply of items. The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party in this regard during the month of June, 2013, who allotted complaint No.1-19035686301 and in the month of October, 2013, the said complaint number was changed to 1-19451917031 and received a message stating that thank you for updating the details and requested changes will be updated in the system and gave the customer care Number as 1800-2097979.

            As the items were not supplied and there was no reply, the complainant made several calls to customer care service center, but in vain. The complainant got issued legal notice dt.13.11.2014 vide Ex.A2 seeking relief. The opposite parties replied on 15.12.2014 to send the documents in support of the complainant’s demand instead of redressing the complaint. No further response is from the 2^nd opposite party, who concerned with the transaction. The complainant further alleged that he roamed around the office of the 1^st opposite party, but his demand was never attended. On that, the complainant approached Parishkruthi Consumer Association and got issued a notice dt.17.4.2015 vide Ex.A3 to both the opposite parties, but in vain.

            We observed that the 1^st opposite party who has to provide after sales service at Rajahmundry miserably failed to discharge their duty towards the complainant in supplying the accessories, who purchased the Tata Nano Car from their showroom. The 2^nd opposite party being the manufacturer of the Tata Nano Car is also equally liable for providing after sales service along with the 1^st opposite party dealer. Further, it is also evident that inspite of several personal approaches by the complainant and through notices, the opposite parties never responded in any manner to the demands of the complainant herein, which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

With the above said discussion and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties are liable to pay for the missed items in the Tata Nano car and compensation for agony along with costs of this complaint because the complainant was forced to approach this Forum as the opposite parties are acted in a negligent manner.    

    

7.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- towards value of non-supplied items and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony to the complainant. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of this complaint. Time for compliance is two months from the date of this order.    

 

 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the 6^th day of April, 2016.

                  Sd/-                                                                                           Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)

         

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT: None.                                         FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: None.

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1    Invoice dt.9.5.2013 issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A2    Office copy of the notice dt.13.11.2014 got issued by the complainant.

Ex.A3    Notice dt.17.4.2015 got issued by the complainant.

 

FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:-       - NIL -

 

 

                  Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)