DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.169 of 21-04-2011 Decided on 30-09-2011
Gurdial Singh Sidhu S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, Near Talwandi Sabo Road, Bus Stand, Raman Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, aged about 65 years. .......Complainant Versus
M/s Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House, 24 Homi Modi Street, Mumbai-400001, through its Managing Director. M/s Mehta Motors, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its proprietor. State Bank of India, Branch Raman, District Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Kikkar Bazar, Bathinda. General Manager, LHO, State Bank of India, Chandigarh.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Harpreet Singh, counsel for the complainant For Opposite parties: Sh. Manjit Dhamija, counsel for opposite party No.1 Sh. Sandeep Baghla, counsel for opposite party No.2 Sh. Anil Gupta, counsel for opposite party Nos.3 to 5
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant wanted to purchase a Nano Car Model LXBS3 Lunar Silver (top model), applied for loan with the opposite party No.3 for booking Nano car and after completing all the formalities and documents, loan for an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was sanctioned by the opposite party No.3 vide Loan Account No.30747244989. The complainant had paid Rs.500/- as processing charges to the opposite party No.3 and paid Rs.3,499/- as booking fees in advance. The amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was sent by the opposite party No.3 to the opposite party No.4 alongwith loan application and the opposite party No.4 sent cheque/draft to the opposite party No.1 for booking of the car. On the receipt of this cheque/draft from the opposite party No.4, a Nano car was booked in the name of the complainant vide UIN No.112059673 on 23.06.2009 by the opposite party No.1. According to terms and conditions of the booking of the car, the opposite party No.1 was to pay interest on the booking amount till the day of delivery of booked car. The complainant was paid interest by the opposite party No.1 for the period from 23.06.2009 to 30.09.2009 vide cheque No.928603 dated 03.11.2009 for a sum of Rs.2,489.58; for the period from 01.10.2009 to 31.12.2009 vide cheque No.130640 dated 03.02.2010 for Rs.2,289.01 and for the period from 01.01.2010 to 31.03.2010 vide cheque No.675930 dated 14.04.2010 for an amount of Rs.2,238.12. Thereafter, the complainant received a communication from the opposite party No.1 that the car booked by him, is ready for delivery and he was also informed that the interest will be reimbursed to him by the company till 31.08.2010 latest and he also received communication from the opposite party No.1 that the interest for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.08.2010 has been sent to him but the complainant has not been received any cheque/draft on account of interest for the said period till date. After that the complainant received communication from the opposite party No.1 that it will not delivering the top model of Nano car as they have received Rs.1,20,000/- from the financier i.e. opposite party No.3. The complainant enquired from the opposite party No.3 who informed that they have sent draft for an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- against loan account of the complainant to the opposite party No.4 for dispatch to the opposite party No.1 and the officials of the opposite party No.4 did not give any satisfactory reply as the complainant was not to be delivered with top model of Nano Car, he got cancelled the booking and he was returned Rs.1,20,000/- only by the opposite party No.1. The complainant had paid total loan amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the opposite party No.3 besides the opposite party Nos.3&4 have rendered deficient services to the complainant. As the opposite party No.4 paid Rs.1,20,000/- only to the opposite party No.1 for booking of the car against the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.1,40,000/- as such, the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.20,000/- from the opposite party No.3 alongwith interest amount charged on this amount for release of loan and the amount of Rs.500/- charged for processing and Rs.3,499/- charged as advance booking fees alongwith interest. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their separate written statements. The opposite party No.1 has pleaded that it is the manufacturing company and Nano cars are being manufactured by the opposite party No.1 in bulk to supply it to dispatch to the authorized dealers on 'principal to principal' basis for sale of the cars. The opposite party No.1 had made an invitation to offer to the public for booking of Nano Cars on the terms and conditions. The complainant had booked Nano Car through financier and deposited Rs.1,40,000/- through financier but the complainant had dropped his idea to purchase the car due to non availability of top model of the car. Therefore, the complainant cancelled the booking and he was returned only Rs.1,20,000/- except interest by the opposite party No.1. The complainant has based his complaint on breach of contract. In such circumstances, there is no question of hiring of any services of the opposite party No.1. It is merely a sale of goods. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that an amount of Rs.20,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. payable to Gurdial Singh Sidhu, was also sent by the opposite party No.1 on 12.07.2011 but unfortunately the cheque was returned due to insufficient address. The complainant was repaid the total amount of Rs.1,40,000/- in which Rs.1,20,000/- has been given to the complainant through opposite party No.3 and a cheque No.9826667 of Rs.20,000/-, drawn on HDFC Bank payable to Gurdial Singh Sidhu was also sent by the opposite party No.1 on 12.07.2011. The opposite party No.1 further pleaded that the “On cancellation of the booking of the car, the complainant has entitled after deduction of Rs.2,999/- from the booking amount as per terms No.7 which is read as under:- “On Cancellation, the payment made by the Allottee will be refunded by Tata Motors, within 30 days of the request for cancellation, after deduction of cancellation charges of Rs.2,999/-.” The opposite party No.1 is still ready and willing to refund the booking amount after deducting the said amount on production of the original booking Form and cancellation letter alongwith the demand of refund. It ha further pleaded that the complainant has not entitled to get any interest on booking amount as per clause 1(f) of the terms and conditions which is read as under:- “No interest will be paid to the Allottees till the date of delivery of the Tata Nano Car or cancellation of the Allotment, sought by the Allottee whichever is earlier.” The complainant had voluntarily dropped his idea to purchase the car. The opposite party No.1 is still ready and willing to deliver the vehicle to the complainant. 3. The opposite party No.2 has pleaded that there is no privity of contract qua the complainant and the opposite party No.2. The complainant had booked the car in question through the opposite party No.3 and the amount had been paid directly to the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2 has no concern in the entire transaction of the alleged booking. 4. The opposite party No.3 has pleaded that the opposite party has sent a demand draft No.296270 dated 24.04.2009 for Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith application Form No.112059673 for Tata Nano Booking of the complainant to the opposite party No.4 who further sent it on 25.04.2009 alongwith other applications for crediting CMP Collection Account No.2399632015400 on account of CMP client M/s Tata Motors Ltd., The opposite party No.1 CMP client code No.006741 through Pay In Slip No.213482. The complainant has closed his loan account on 18.07.2009. 5. The opposite party No.4 has pleaded that the opposite party No.4 was the nodal branch for booking of Tata Nano Car and had received a demand draft No.296270 dated 24.04.2009 for Tata Nano Booking of the complainant for onward submission. The opposite party No.4 had further sent it on 25.07.2009 alongwith other applications for crediting CMP Collection Account No.2399632015400 on account of CMP client M/s Tata Motors Ltd., The opposite party No.1 CMP client code No.006741 through Pay In Slip No.213482. On 25.04.2009, a total sum of Rs.37,15,000/- was sent by the opposite party No.4 to CMP, alongwith application Forms and Pay In Slips, showing the details of the applications and amount for crediting the same to the account of the opposite party No.1 on account of booking amount of Tata Nano Car which includes the application No.112059673 of the complainant against which a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- has been credited to the account of the opposite party No.1. 6. No separate reply has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No.5. 7. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 8. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 9. The undisputed facts are that the complainant took loan from the opposite party No.3 for booking of Nano Car (top model) and the loan of Rs.1,40,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant by the opposite party No.3 vide loan A/c No.30747244989. The complainant had paid Rs.500/- as processing charges to the opposite party No.3 and paid Rs.3,499/- as booking fees in advance. The amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was sent by the opposite party No.3 to the opposite party No.4 alongwith loan application and the opposite party No.4 sent cheque/draft to the opposite party No.1 for booking of the car. On the receipt of this cheque/draft from the opposite party No.4, a Nano car was booked in the name of the complainant vide UIN No.112059673 on 23.06.2009 and the complainant was paid interest by the opposite party No.1 for the period from 23.06.2009 to 30.09.2009 vide cheque No.928603 dated 03.11.2009 for a sum of Rs.2,489.58; for the period from 01.10.2009 to 31.12.2009 vide cheque No.130640 dated 03.02.2010 for Rs.2,289.01 and for the period from 01.01.2010 to 31.03.2010 vide cheque No.675930 dated 14.04.2010 for an amount of Rs.2,238.12. A communication was received by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 that the car booked by him, is ready for delivery and he was also informed that the interest will be reimbursed by the company till 31.08.2010 latest. 10. The disputed facts between the parties are that the complainant had paid amount of Rs.1,40,000/- but the opposite party No.4 paid Rs.1,20,000/- only to the opposite party No.1 for booking of the car against sanctioned loan of Rs.1,40,000/-. The opposite party Nos.3&4 have rendered deficient services to the complainant and as such, he is entitled for refund of Rs.20,000/- from the opposite party No.3. The complainant was informed that the interest will be reimbursed by the company till 31.08.2010 and had also received the communication from the opposite party No.1 that the interest for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.08.2010 has been sent to him but the complainant has not been received any cheque/draft on account of interest for the said period till date. 11. The opposite party No.1 has submitted that the complainant deposited Rs.1,40,000/- through financier but he had dropped his idea to purchase the car due to non availability of the top model car. Therefore, the complainant cancelled the booking and he was returned only Rs.1,20,000/- except interest by the opposite party No.1 and a cheque No.9826667 of Rs.20,000/-, drawn on HDFC Bank payable to Gurdial Singh Sidhu was also sent by the opposite party No.1 on 12.07.2011 but unfortunately the cheque was returned due to insufficient address. The opposite party No.1 is still ready and willing to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and it has further submitted that on cancellation of booking, the amount of Rs.2,999/- will be deducted from his booking amount as per terms No.7 which is read as under:- “On Cancellation, the payment made by the Allottee will be refunded by Tata Motors, within 30 days of the request for cancellation, after deduction of cancellation charges of Rs.2,999/-.” It has further submitted that the complainant has also not entitled for any interest of the booking amount as per as per clause 1(f) of the terms and conditions which is read as under:- “No interest will be paid to the Allottees till the date of delivery of the Tata Nano Car or cancellation of the Allotment, sought by the Allottee whichever is earlier.” 12. The opposite party No.2 has submitted that there is no privity of contract qua the complainant and the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.3 has submitted that the opposite party No.3 has sent a demand draft No.296270 dated 24.04.2009 for Rs.1,40,000/- alongwith application Form No.112059673 for Tata Nano Booking of the complainant to the opposite party No.4 who further sent it on 25.04.2009 alongwith other applications for crediting CMP Collection Account No.2399632015400 on account of CMP client M/s Tata Motors Ltd. as such there is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.4 has submitted that on 25.04.2009, a total sum of Rs.37,15,000/- was sent by the opposite party No.4 to CMP, alongwith application Forms and Pay In Slips, showing the details of the applications and amount for crediting the same to the account of the opposite party No.1 on account of booking amount of Tata Nano Car which includes the application No.112059673 of the complainant against which a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- has been credited to the account of the opposite party No.1. 13. The opposite party No.1 has sent a letter dated 08.02.2010 Ex.C-11 to the complainant which is reproduced as under:- “This refers to your application No.UIN 112059673 for the Nano Booking. Kindly find enclosed the cheque No.130640 towards interest applicable. This is calculated at 8.50% for the period 01.10.2009 to 31.12.2009.” 14. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 has sent a letter dated 19.04.2010 Ex.C-13 to the complainant which is reproduced as under:- “This refers to your application No.UIN 112059673 for the Nano Booking. Kindly find enclosed the cheque No.675930 towards interest applicable. This is calculated at 8.50% for the period 01.01.2010 to 31.03.2010.” 15. Sh. M.K.Bipin Das, Manager (Law) Tata Motors Ltd. has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R-9 in para no.6 that the complainant had booked Nano car through financier and was allotted the Nano car but the complainant had dropped his idea to purchase the car, therefore, the opposite party No.3 had refunded the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to him and a cheque No.982667 of Rs.20,000/-, drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. payable to Gurdial Singh Sidhu was also send by the opposite party No.1 on 12.07.2011 but unfortunately, the cheque was returned due to insufficient address even though the opposite party No.1 is still ready to give an amount of Rs.20,000/-. On cancellation of the booking, the complainant is entitled for remaining amount after deducting Rs.2,999/- form the booking amount as per the terms No.7. The opposite party No.1 is ready and willing to refund the booking amount after deduction of the aforesaid amount on the production of original booking and cancellation letter alongwith demand of refund. 16. The condition with regard to the deduction of the amount on the cancellation of booking has not been informed to the complainant as such, this condition is not binding on the complainant. Therefore, the opposite parties cannot deduct the said amount. 17. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted against the opposite party No.1 with direction to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization and dismissed qua opposite party Nos.2 to 5. Compliance of this order be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 30-09-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
|
