OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C. 59/16
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
Sri Chintamoni Mahanta - Complainant
S/O- Late Atul Ch.Mahanta
R/O Forest School Front,
P.S. & P.O. - Jalukbari,
Kamrup,(Metro)Assam
-vs-
1) Poddar Auto Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.parties
A authorized dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra
Ltd., Paschim Boragaon, N.H.-37
Guwahati-35.
Represented by the proprietor -Mr.Anand Poddar
2) Sri Thaneswar Kalita
Sale Consultant Poddar Pvt.Ltd.
Paschim Boragaon, N.H.-37
P.O.Garchuk,Guwahati-35.
3) Sri Roshan Choudhury
Sale Consultant Poddar Pvt.Ltd.
Paschim Boragaon, N.H.-37
P.O.Garchuk,Guwahati-35.
Appearance : -
Ld. advocate for the complainant -Complainant himself.
Date of exparte argument- 24.1.2018
Date of exparte judgment- 7.2.2018
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1) This is a proceeding u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986.
The complaint filed by Sri Chintamoni Mahanta against Poddar Auto Coop Pvt.Ltd., Sri Thaneswar Kalita, and Sri Roshan Choudhury was admitted on 20.7.2016 and notices were served on all opp.parties , but opp.party side has defaulted to appear and accordingly this case against them is proceeding on exparte vide this Forum’s order dtd. 7.4.2017. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and he also filed his exparte written argument on 24.8.17 and this forum heard oral exparte argument of the complainant on 24.1.18 and delivered the judgment today, which is below-
2) The case of the complainant , in brief, is that Opp.Party No.2 being a sale consultant of Opp.Party No.1 approached him with a hope to get a vehicle purchase from Opp.Party No.1, and accordingly; he ,being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the scheduled period of the expired date of delivery of the vehicle, booked a New Scorpio – LX-rear seat front facing by paying a sum of Rs.20,000/- vide cheque No. 078417 dtd.23.9.14 of Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. Guwahati against the total price of the said vehicle; and at the time of booking Opp.Party No.2 assured him to inform him as soon as the booked vehicle would arrive to the show room; but even taking of time more than two months Opp.Party No.2 did not inform him about the expected arrival of the said vehicle, but after 2 & ½ months of taking advance Opp.Party No.2 informed him about arrival of the said vehicle and requested him to visit their show-room for start of process of selling , but on visiting the show room he found that the model of the vehicle is different from his booked vehicle i.e. the rear seat arrangements was side facing instead of front facing as per order of booking date 23.9.14, and then he refused to accept the said vehicle and then Opp.Party No.2 assured him to bring the booked vehicle as per his specification within a period of one month , but one month elapsed and no information regarding arrival of the booked vehicle has been received and after passing of one month, Opp.Party No.2 again assured him delivery of the booked vehicle as per his specification in the month of April,2015 before Bihu Festival, but the Opp.Party No.2 failed to keep his commitment and then he requested Opp..Party No.2 to refund his advance money, but latter requested him not to take back the advance money and to wait for sometime, but then also the latter failed to keep his commitment and to refund his advance money, and he then again, in the middle part of Nov.2015, requested Opp.Party No.2 on telephone to refund his advance money. Thereafter, on 19.11.2015, Opp.Party No.2 & 3 met him in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate , Kamrup and informed him about arrival of the booked vehicle and hand-over the quotation dtd. 19.11.2015, wherein value of the vehicle shown was Rs.11,22,396/-, and they assured him to hand-over the vehicle as soon bank finance procedure will be completed. Basing on that said assurance, he approached Branch Manager of Assam Gramin Vikas Bank, Guwahati on 20.11.15 for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and the bank agreed to give him the said loan and accordingly started the process of loan, but surprisingly, on 24.11.15, Opp.Party No.2 informed him about selling of said vehicle to another person and apologised for that and at the same time assured him to provide him the vehicle within four weeks, but they failed to provide said vehicle to him and then he visited Opp.Party No.1 for demanding the delivery of the said vehicle or refund of the advance amount; and then on 19.2.16 Opp.Party No.2 & 3 handed over a quotation of a vehicle of Rs.11,33,042/- which is about 10,000/- higher than the quotation dtd.19.11.2015 and Opp.Party No.3 asked him to pay the difference amount of Rs.10,000/- in advance , which he had given vide cheque No.996765 of SBI, Guwahati branch dtd. 26.2.16, but opp.party side failed to deliver the vehicle inspite of their assurance. Opp.Party No. 3 again assured him to deliver the vehiclr within 31.3.2016, but failed to do so and then he met Opp.Party No.2 again and the latter also assured him to deliver the vehicle within first week of April,2016, but he also failed to keep his commitment. Thereafter, on 28.4.2016 Opp.Party No.3 informed him about availability of booked vehicle and requested him for applying fresh bank loan; and accordingly, on 30.4.2016, Opp.Party No. 3 along with the Manger of Podder Auto Corp.Pvt.Ltd. met him at Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Uzan Bazar Branch for applying loan, and on the same date (30.4.16), they demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- by cash or cheque, but the complainant refused to do the same and assured to pay the heavy contribution of Rs.6,03,042/- only and as per quotation dtd. 19.2.16 at the time of delivering the vehicle and on the basis of the said quotation price, the loan was processed and loan was finally sanctioned on 4.5.2016 on the basis of quotation dtd. 19.2.2016 wherein the total value of the vehicle quoted as Rs.11,33,042/- and after receiving sanction latter he went to the show room of the opp.party on 5.5.2016 and met the manager; Opp.Party No.2 as well as Opp.Party No.3 for doing formalities to deliver the said vehicle, but the op.party demand Rs.11,73,292/- as sell price of the said vehicle instate of Rs.11,33,042/- quoted in quotation dtd.19.2.16. The difference of the value of the vehicle quoted in the quotation dtd.19.2.16 and the vehicle which is the opp.parties forced him to take on 5.5.16 is Rs.40,350/- and that difference amount can be claimed by the opp.parties; but they are bound the deliver the vehicle to him at the price of Rs.11,33,042/- as per question dtd.19.2.16, but the opp.parties refused to deliver the vehicle to him in the said price . In result, he suffered from mental agony and the opp.party also refused to refund the advance money, he had paid to them and therefore, the opp.parties are guilty of deficiency of service towards him and are liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental sufferings to him and to refund the advance amount of Rs.30,000/- which he had paid to them with interest @ 10% per annum.
3) We have perused the evidence of the complainant and found that on 23.9.2014 Opp.Party No.2 approached the complainant to book a vehicle (New Scorpio – LX-rear seat front facing) and he booked the said vehicle by paying advance Rs.20,000/- vide cheque No. 078417 dtd.23.9.14 of Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. Guwahati.
4) We have also found from evidence of the complainant that Opp.Party No.2 & 3 on 19.11.2015 handed over a quotation to him of a vehicle of price of Rs.11,22,396/-, and accordingly he applied for a loan in Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Uzan Bazar on 20.11.2015 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- and the bank agreed to give him the said amount, but on 24.11.15 Opp.Party No.2 informed him that the said vehicle sold to another customer of Nagaland assuring him that the vehicle will be delivered to him within four weeks, but failed to keep their commitment. and then he demanded the delivering of the said vehicle visiting Podder Auto Corporation Pvt.Ltd., then Opp.Party No.2 & 3 assured him to hand over said vehicle within four weeks but handed over him a quotation dtd. 19.2.2016 on that day where the price of the vehicle shown as Rs.11,33,042/-which is higher about RS.10,000/- then the price given in question dtd. 19.11.2015.
It is also seen from his evidence that Opp.Party No.3 met him in the C.J.M.court campus on 23.3.2016, and requested to pay the difference amount of Rs.10,000/- as advance and he then paid the said amount to Opp.Party No.3 vide cheque No.996765 dtd. 26.2.2016 of SBI, Guwahati branch . But they failed to deliver the said vehicle and again assured him to deliver the vehicle within 31.3.2016 and that they failed to keep their word, and he again met Opp.Party No.2 and the later assured him to deliver the vehicle within first week of April; and that time also the opp.parties failed to deliver to him the vehicle and thereafter on 28.4.2016 Opp.Party No.3 informed him about availability of booked vehicle and requested him to apply for fresh loan through Podder Auto Corporation Pvt.Ltd. and demanded payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by cash or cheque instantly for delivery of the vehicle. But he refused to do the delivery of the same, but assured him to pay self contribution of Rs.6,03,042/- alongwith Rs.5,00,000/- as bank draft as per quotation dtd.19.2.2006 at the delivery of the vehicle, and the basis of the such quotation, loan was sanctioned on 4.5.2016 and he went to show- room of Podder Auto Corporation Pvt.Ltd. on 5.5.2016 and met the manager and Opp.Party No.2 & 3 to do the formalities and deliver the vehicle, but they demanded Rs.11,73,292/- against the sale price of the vehicle instead of Rs.11,33,042/- as quoted in quotation dtd.19.2.16. These statements of the complainant are quite believable having supported by documents ranging from Ex.1, to Ex.6. We have also perused Ex.6 . It is found that the actual price of the vehicle as per question dtd. 19.2.16 is 11,33,042/- and Ex.7 also the price list of the vehicle also shows that the total price of the said vehicle is Rs.11,33,042/- and these two documents were handed over to the complainant by the opp.parties themslves. Therefore, our opinion is that the opp.party side is liable to hand over the said vehicle at a price of Rs.11,33,042/- only and they cannot demand Rs.11,73,392/- as the price of the said vehicle, and therefore, the demand of Rs.11,73,392/- as the price of the said vehicle is an illegal act on the part of the complainant.
From evidence it is also found that the first quotation was dtd.19.11.2015, which is Ex.6, and initial price of the vehicle as per quotation was Rs.11,22,396/-, but on the request of the opp.parties he requested the fresh quotation which is of dated 19.2.16 (Ex.6(1) ) and he also paid the difference of these two quotations i.e. Rs.10,000/-to the opp.parties. Therefore, we are of opinion that the opp.party side is bound to deliver the vehicle as per quotation dtd. 19.2.16 at a price of Rs. 11,33,042/-. It is found that the opp.party side sought Rs.40,000/- more in cost of price quoted in the quotation dtd.19.2.16 and therefore, the complaint is not liable to pay that amount to the opp.parties.
The act of refusing to deliver the vehicle to the complainant as per price mentioned in quotation dtd. 19.2.16 is clearly an act of causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, the opp.party side is liable to pay at least Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant and secondly, to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceeding and thirdly, to refund the advance money, Rs.30,000/- which the complainant had paid to the opp.party, with interest @ 12% per annum from the day of 19.11.15.
5) Summing up above discussion , we hold that the complaint is allowable on exparte. Accordingly, the complaint against all the opp.parties is allowed on exparte and they are directed to refund the advance money of Rs.30,000/- which the complainant had paid to them with interest @ 12% per annum from the day of 19.11.15, and also to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to him as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceeding to-which all the opp.parties are jointly and severally liable. They are directed to pay the amounts within 45 days , in default , the other two amounts shall also carry interest at the same rate.
Given under our hand and seal on this the 7th day of Feb,2018.
(Smti.Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Sahadat Hussain)
Member President
