Date of Filing:15.09.2008<br /> Date of Order:20.12.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2016 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Bangalore Scottish School<br /> No. 24-39, 4th Cross<br /> Navodaya Nagar, 7th Phase<br /> J.P. Nagar, Kottanur<br /> Bangalore 560 078<br /> Rept. By its Authorised Signatory<br /> & Secretary, Mr. E. Venugopal Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. M/s. Khivraj Motors<br /> No. 35/3, Ground Floor<br /> Langford Road<br /> Bangalore 560 035<br /> Rept. by its Manager<br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Force Motors<br /> Mumbai – Pune Road<br /> Akurdi – Pune – 411035<br /> Rept. by its Manager Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.<br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant is an educational institution booked with the 1st opposite party for supply of Traveller D1 (HR) (14+D) (L) BS III by remitting an advance payment of Rs. 25,000/-. The 2nd opposite party issued Form 22 certifying that the vehicle Traveller D1 (HR) (L) BS III bearing chassis No. T58020881G06 and engine No. D-37000375 complied with the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule made there under. Complainant on 11.06.2008 made further payments of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 6,00,204/-. Upon receipt of the full amount on 12.06.2008 the 1st opposite party under Form No. 21 issued a Sale Certificate in favour of the complainant and gave the details of the vehicle. 1st opposite party got issued a temporary certificate of registration from the jurisdictional Regional Transport Office. The complainant had booked for the delivery of the vehicle during the current year i.e. 2008. In the warranty certificate issued by the 1st opposite party disclosed the fact that the vehicle delivered to the complainant was of the year 2006. This act of the 1st opposite party was a clear act of criminal breach of trust. After due deliberations and series of persuasion the 1st opposite party changed the vehicle and issued a fresh delivery note on 13.08.2008. On account of the callous and negligent act of the 1st opposite party the complainant suffered mentally, financially and morally and sought for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties through RPAD. Opposite parties put in appearance through advocate and defence version filed stating that complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the reason that alleged vehicle is a commercial one and the same was purchased by the complainant for commercial use i.e. for the purpose of ferrying the school students from part of the city to the other part of the city on collection of money from the parents and in the process to make profit. On this ground itself the complaint fails. All other allegations made in the complaint are denied. The opposite parties submits that by oversight instead of billing 2008 model billed 2006 model due to urgency of delivering the said vehicle. It is submitted that it is these opposite parties who had observed about this fact and brought it to the knowledge of the complainant and sought some time to replace the said vehicle with a 2008 model. On 13.08.2008 opposite parties delivered vehicle of the 2008 model as assured. Opposite parties had delivered the earlier vehicle to the complainant only to be used as a spare vehicle till the same is replaced with. At no point of time, the complainant has suffered any inconvenience at all at the hands of the opposite parties. There is no deficiency of service by the opposite parties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> “Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?”<br /> 5. It is admitted case of the parties that the opposite parties coming to know that the vehicle of model 2006 has been despatched and not 2008 model and this fact has been informed to the complainant by the opposite parties and sought some time to replace the vehicle with a 2008 model. As per the commitment the opposite parties delivered vehicle of the model 2008. The opposite parties have also delivered earlier vehicle to be used as a spare vehicle till the same is replaced with the 2008 model. The complainant used 2008 vehicle from 12.06.2008 till 14.08.2008 as a stand by vehicle. The complainant had made use of the 2006 model vehicle as a stand by vehicle till the delivery of 2008 model vehicle. The first vehicle had run 2388 kms. Under these circumstances at no point of time the complainant suffered any inconvenience at the hands of the opposite parties. Where is the question of any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is only due to over sight 2006 model vehicle was delivered at the first instance to the complainant and after coming to know this fact same has been brought to the notice of the complainant by the opposite parties and informed the complainant that 2008 model will be delivered to them and till delivery of new vehicle the complainant was allowed to use the first vehicle and accordingly, the complainant had made use of the first vehicle as a stand by vehicle and the opposite parties have delivered 2008 model vehicle on 13.08.2008. So under these circumstances there is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. There is absolutely no merit in the complaint. It is unfortunate on the part of the complainant in seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- without there being any basis or loss. The question of claiming compensation against opposite parties does not arise at all, because the complainant has not suffered any inconvenience or hardship on account of delivery of 2006 vehicle at the first instance. The mistake committed by the opposite parties had been brought to the notice of the complainant and said mistake has been corrected by giving delivery of 2008 model vehicle. So under these circumstances the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. The complaint is devoid of merits. Therefore, same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> CV<br />