0 Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/19/2015

Nerukonda Sujatha - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sri Devi Motors - Opp.Party(s)

P.A. Chowdary

17 Dec 2015

ORDER

                                                                                    Date of filing:   27.03.2015

                                                                                                Date of Order: 17.12.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY

 

          PRESENT:   Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L.,  .. President (FAC)

                     Sri S.Bhaskar Rao, M.A., B.L., D.P.M.,    .. Member

                               

                                                                 Thursday, the 17^th day of December, 2015

 

C.C.No.19 /2015

Between:-

 

Nerukonda Sujatha, W/o. Srinivas, Hindu, Age 42 years,

R/o. Tapeswaram, Mandapeta Mandal, E.G. District.                                                               ….       Complainant

 

                        and

 

1)   M/s. Sri Devi Motors, Rep. by its Proprietor,

      Rimalapudi Prasad, Dealers of Honda Activa,

      Alamuru Road, Mandapeta, E.G. Dt.

 

2)   Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,

      Plot No.1, Sector: 3, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon District,

      Haryana – 122050.

 

3)   Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,

      South Regional Office, Kareem Towers, # 19/5 & 19/6,

      2^nd Floor, Cunningham road, Bangalore, Karnataka.                                                        ….       Opposite parties

                                               

 

            This case coming on 10.12.2015 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri P.A. Chowdary, Advocate for the complainant and Sri A.K. Bala Sundar, Advocate for the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party having been set exparte and the case against the 3^rd opposite party is dismissed and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

O R D E R

[Per Sri S. Bhaskara Rao, Member] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.5,000/- (paid by the complainant towards advance) along with interest at 24% from the date when advance was given till realization and pay Rs.10,000/- by way of damages for breach of contract.

2.         The case of the complainant is that she booked Honda Activa White colour scooter with the 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- as advance vide receipt No.71 dt.9.8.2013 subject to the condition made by the 1^st opposite party to deliver the vehicle within one month from the date of booking. Though more than 3 months have been elapsed after booking of the vehicle and inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant, the    1^st opposite party has not chosen to deliver the vehicle.  On 13.11.2013, the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties and the 1^st opposite party gave reply dt.27.11.2013 with false allegations. The opposite parties 2 & 3 are the controlling authorities and also suppliers of vehicle to the 1^st opposite party, they are also vicariously liable for the acts of the 1^st opposite party. Hence, the complaint.

3.         The 1^st opposite party filed its written version and denied all the allegations made by the complainant. It is true that the complainant booked for Honda Activa Scooter and paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards advance, but it is not true and correct that the vehicle delivered to the complainant within one month. Even though three months have been elapsed and the 1^st opposite party has not delivered the vehicle is false and incorrect and the complainant never demanded to deliver the vehicle within three months are not true and correct. Whereas in view of the inordinate delay and the 1^st opposite party failed to fulfill his promise is not true and correct and the complainant that forced to invest an amount of Rs.10,000/- in addition to the market price of the vehicle and constrained to purchased the same from another dealer is not true and correct. Though the 1^st opposite party made promise sternly and he failed to keep the same consequently on his failure to deliver the scooter within time, the complainant is entitle to claim damages from the 1^st opposite party is not true and correct. The 1^st opposite party submits that he have no objection to refund the advance amount of Rs.5,000/- paid by the complainant on 9.8.2013 without interest.  The opposite party has no liability to pay damages or compensation to the complainant because the complainant himself violates the express words of the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party consented to wait until the vehicle is delivered, but however because of hastly attitude of the complainant, he took another vehicle and for that cause, the 1^st opposite party is not responsible.  Hence, the 1^st opposite party prays that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

4.         The proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exs.A1 to A3 have been marked. The 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit and there is no documentary evidence is adduced by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant filed written arguments.

5.         Heard both sides.

6.         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?     

7.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:   As per the record, the complainant herein booked Honda Activa white colour scooter on 9.8.2013 with the 1^st opposite party and paid an advance amount of Rs.5,000/- on the even date as per the receipt No.71 dt.9.8.2013 vide Ex.A1. As the 1^st opposite party failed to deliver the scooter within one month’s time from the date of booking of the scooter, the complainant got issued Ex.A2 legal notice dt.13.11.2013 to the 1^st opposite party and received Ex.A3 reply dt.27.11.2013 refuting the allegations made by the complainant.

            It is observed that the 1^st opposite party admitted that they received advance of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant towards white colour scooter, but denied all the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint. The 1^st opposite party is ready to refund the advance amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant, but without interest and damages demanded by the complainant.

            We observed that the complainant’s amount of Rs.5,000/- paid towards advance for the Honda Activa scooter was remained with the 1^st opposite party all these years right from 9.8.2013 and inspite of complainant’s demand on 13.11.2013 through legal notice, the  1^st opposite party did not take any steps to refund the advance amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Non-delivery of vehicle and non-refund of advance amount constitutes deficiency in service.  Under those circumstances, we are in the considered opinion that the complainant herein is entitled to claim reasonable interest on the advance amount of Rs.5,000/- from the 1^st opposite party.  However, there is no evidence that the complainant was forced to invest an amount of Rs.10,000/- in addition to the market price of the scooter and constrained to purchase the scooter from another dealer.

8.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the 1^st opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of demand i.e. 13.11.2013 till realization. We further direct the 1^st opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards costs of this complaint. The claim against the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties were dismissed. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.

 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the           

17^th day of December, 2015.

                Sd/-xxx                                                                                          Sd/-xxx

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)

         

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT: None.                                                                                     FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: None.

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1    Original receipt.

Ex.A2   Legal notice issued by the complainant.

Ex.A3    Reply notice issued by the 1^st opposite party.

 

FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:-     - Nil -

 

                  Sd/-xxx                                                                                        Sd/-xxx

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)