BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 93/2012.
THIS THE 16th DAY OF MAY 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Mohamed Shafi Uzair S/o. A.M. Pasha, Age: 32
years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 12-12-251, Haji colony, Arab Mohalla, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. M/s. Muneer Cars, Sanklapur, Bellary Road,
Hospet- 583 201.
2. The General Manager Sales, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Regd. Office Plot No-1 Nelsom Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi- 110070.
3. Manager, Muneer Cars, AS Complex, Gowshala Road, Raichur- 584 102.
CLAIM : For to appolise opposite party for all in the
inconvenience caused to the complainant to refund ticket amount of Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 50,000/- physical strain and mental agony and to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of the petition.
Date of institution :- 08-11-12.
Notice served :- 05-12-12.
Date of disposal :- 16-05-13.
Complainant represented by Sri. A.M. Pasha, Advocate.
Opposite No. 1 & 3 represented by Sri. K. Mohan, Advocate.
Opposite No-2 In person.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Gururaj, Member:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Sri. Mohammed Shafi Uzair against opposites 1 to 3 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to appolise opposite party for all in the inconvenience caused to the complainant to refund ticket amount of Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 50,000/- physical strain and mental agony and to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of the petition.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, the company booked the brand new Maruti Swift Desire Car by paying sum of Rs. 10,000/- as booking money on 04-04-2012 vide cash receipt voucher No. 13 dt. 04-04-2012 with opposite No-1 M/s. Muneer Car Raichur. Accordingly he demanded the proforma Invoice for Ex Show Room of the vehicle and to deliver the vehicle immediately. The M/s. Muneer Car Pvt. Ltd., Hospet, issued proforma invoice dt. 02-07-2012 for Ex- show room price of Rs. 6,53,068/-. It is further case of the complainant that, he has paid Rs. 1,00,000/- on 17-10-2012 vide cash voucher No. 0428 dt. 17-07-2012 and Rs. 93,141/- vide cash voucher No. 0459 dt. 27-07-2012 and arranged Rs. 4,50,000/- through Indus India Bank Ltd., Bangalore. In all he has paid Rs. 6,53,141/- on 10-09-2012. Despite of payment of all these amounts the opposite did not deliver the vehicle on the day. But in the mean time M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., enhanced price of the vehicle from 1st week of the October 2012 and for that reason, he suffered loss of Rs. 12,330/- and for non delivery of the vehicle interest on full amount paid to the dealer from 10-09-2012 at the rate of 24%., he also submitted that, he has suffered with a mental agony and damages to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and sought for Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of the petition. Further he has also claimed Rs. 20,000/- towards refund of the full ticket amount as there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite.
3. Opposite Nos-1 & 3 have filed power through their respective advocate and opposite No-2 has sent written version and evidence through speed post along with letter dt. 07-12-2012 same has been received from this Forum on 18-12-2012. But over sight on 10-01-2013 he has been placed Ex-parte. However his written statement and evidence has been considered while deciding this case.
Opposite Nos 1 to 3 have filed their written statement mainly contending that, there is no deficiency in service on their part, the written statement of the opposite Nos. 1 & 3 discloses that, after receipt of the order from the complainant for the Maruti Swift Dzire-LDI Car and after receipt of the amount made an indent to the opposite No-2 who having accepted to send the vehicle at the date and time intimated by the opposite No-3. But after receipt of the order an amount from the opposite No-3. The opposite No-2 has failed to deliver the vehicle. Hence, delayed has been caused by the opposite No-2 and because of this they were unable to deliver the vehicle to the complainant as per the order booking/check list. Further it is contended that, the complainant has took delivery of Maruti Swift Dzire-VDI vehicle which is high and model/variant with high price than that off the vehicle Maruti Swift Dzire-LDI which was originally intended to be purchased. This itself clearly goes to show that, the complainant unnecessarily filed the present complaint in order to harass the opposite Nos 1 & 3. The fixing of the rate and making the delivery is not in their hands and it is only with the opposite No-2. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the side of opposite No-1 & 3.
4. The written statement filed by the opposite No-2 contended that, the complainant is not a consumer of opposite No-2 as there is no transaction of sale and purchase between the complainant and opposite No-2 U/sec. 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. The complainant booked the vehicle with opposite No-1 and purchased the vehicle in question after having mutually settled terms and conditions of sale with opposite No-1. The complainant paid alleged amount to opposite No-3 and the opposite No-2 was not privity to the said sale agreement. There is no privity of the contract between the complainant and opposite No-2. The opposite No-2 being manufacturer does not sell vehicles so manufactured by it, to any individual customer directly the opposite No-2 sells the vehicle to its authorized dealer under the dealership agreement, the authorized dealer including opposite No-2 sells the vehicle to their customers under their own invoice and sales certificate as per MV.Act 1988 . The opposite No-2 has not delayed delivery of vehicle in question. It is the prerogative of the seller to revise the price of its goods if it is not specifically prohibited under any law or the agreed terms and conditions of the sale. Thus the complainant is liable to pay the enhanced price as agreed at the time of booking. Further it is contended that, as per the agreement with opposite No-1 by the complainant and as per condition No-4 of the order booking form it is agreed that, the price/scheme prevailing at the time of invoicing/ billing shall be applicable. The parties cannot go back from the said agreement. The opposite No-1 is a separate and independent legal entity to carry on its business of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles under its own memorandum and article of association. The relationship between opposite Nos- 1 & 2 are on principle to principle basis. Under the above circumstances there is no deficiency on the part of opposite No-2 as there is no contract or any term of transaction held directly between the complainant and opposite No-2.
5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1) Whether the complainant has proves that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite.?
2) Whether the complainant has entitled to get the compensation as prayed in the complainant.?
3) What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In negative.
(2) In negative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
7. To prove the case of complainant, his affidavit-evidence was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of the opposite No-1 & 3 have been filed, through opposite No-3 and same has been adopted by opposite No-1, who has been noted as RW-1. The evidence of RW-2 was sent by post noted as RW-2. The documents of opposite No-1 & 3 have been marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-13. No documents were submitted by opposite No-2.
7. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties. The following points are admitted by both the parties.
It is admitted fact that, the complainant has booked his vehicle Maruti Swift Dzire-LDI for an amount of Rs. 6,53,141/- on 04-04-2012 by paying an advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- and took delivery Maruti Swift Dzire-VDI DMRDCD1 for an amount of Rs. 6,65,470.97/-by paying difference amount of Rs. 12,330/- from opposite No-1 & 3.
8. The complainant has booked the vehicle through opposite No-1 & 3 and took the delivery from the same. There is no direct contact between the opposite No-2 as contended by the opposite No-2. Under such circumstances, the claim against the opposite No-2 holds no good as contended by the opposite No-2. Now the point for consideration before us is that, is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-1 & 3. On seeing the pleadings of the parties, it is very much clear that, the complainant has took the delivery of the Maruti Swift Dzire-VDI DMRDCD1 as per Ex.P-6 by paying difference amount of Rs. 14,000/- an odd instead of earlier booking of vehicle Maruti Swift Dzire-LDI. This fact is clearly goes to show that, the delivery taken vehicle is costlier than the price earlier booked vehicle and for that, we do no find any reason to believe that, there was hike in the price and he has purchased the earlier booked vehicle on higher cost without protest. Under such circumstances, the claim of the complainant in this regards on that fact is not good and we do not find any reasons to believe that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite. On other hand, the pleadings of the complainant is clearly speaks about the delay in supply of vehicle and for that reason, he has to pay extra amount for the same vehicle. But on perusal of prayer of him, we noticed that, he has sought the apology by the opposite as prayer No-1. So this prayer is concerned, we do not have any powers to order to that extent hence, prayer No-1 is rejected. Prayer No-2 is concerned, he has sought a relief of Rs. 20,000/- against the Ticket amount, in this regard we have gone through the earlier pleadings, but no where in the pleadings we have found that, he is entitled for such relief as sought or else, there is no pleadings with regard to ticket amount. Further it is worthwhile to note here that, for what and from where to were he is seeking the ticket amount without pleadings and there is no piece of evidence to show that, how he has spent Rs. 20,000/- for the alleged ticket. Under such circumstances, we cannot grant the said relief as sought by the complainant. Hence, we have rejected the same. When there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite, the question of suffering with the mental piece etc., does not arise. Hence the claim of the complainant in this regard under prayer No-3 holds no good. Hence, rejected the same, under the above circumstances the complainant has utterly failed to prove his case against the opposite. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is hereby rejected, as there is no deficiency in service or on any other ground to allow it. Hence, we answered Point No-1 in Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
9. In view of our finding on Point No- 1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.
POINT NO.3:-
10. In view of our findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 16-05-13)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
*RK
