DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 17^th   day of October 2017

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                                 Date of filing:  02/11/2016

               : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

   (C.C.No.171/2016)

V.Vasudevan,
Vandanazhiyil House,

South Panamanna Road (PO),
Kanniyampuram (PO),

Ottappalam, 679 104,                                   

Palakkad.                                                               -        Complainant

(By party in person only)

 V/s

1.  Popular Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd,              

     Tuda Road, Peringavu,                                       

     Thiruvambadi,

     Thrissur, 680 002.

     Kerala.

     (Adv.K.R.Santhosh Kumar)

2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd,

    Palam Gurgaon Road,

    Gurgaon – 122 015                                              -        Opposite parties

    Haryana.

    (Rep. by Authorised Signatory).

O R D E R

By Shri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member,

          The gest of this case is that the complainant purchased a new Maruti Celerio VXI AMT car from the 1^st opposite party (dealer) which was delivered on 01.01.2016.  The car stands registered in the name of the complainant with SRTO, Ottappalam vide registration No.KL-51 G -799.  Booking for the car was done through the dealer’s sales executive Mr.Nidheesh attached to their office at East Manissery, Ottappalam.  Cost of the car including accessories, Motor vehicle tax and insurance as per invoices and papers issued by the dealer amounted to Rs.5,33,343/- subject to exclusion of Rs.2,000/-for correction due to excess billing.  Therefore the net amount payable was Rs.5,31,443/-.  Towards Rs.5,31,443/- complainant had made advance payments amounting to Rs.5,44,358/- by means of crossed cheques.  The excess payment of Rs.12,915/- (Rs.5,44,358 - 5,31,443) was refundable to the complainant for which the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable, according to the complainant.  The complainant requested the dealer to grant refund of excess amount through a letter dated.17.03.2016 which the dealer did not respond to.  On 9.05.2016 the complainant sent a remainder letter and again on 25.05.2016 an email was sent to the dealer to expedite the refund.  According to the complainant, up to now the dealer did not grant him refund.  However the dealer granted a cheque for Rs.1,867/- on 22.03.2016 which, according to the complainant, is only to correct an excess billing in respect of accessories.

Therefore complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay the complainant refund of excess payment of Rs.11,048/- (Rs.12,915 -1,867) plus interest at 12% per annum of Rs.1,100/- for the period from the date of last cheque payment to date of this complaint plus interest at 12% per annum for the period of further delay plus Rs.30,000/- compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant plus litigation expenses incurred by the complainant. 

The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to opposite parties.  In their version 1^st opposite party contended that the above complaint does not stand legally nor lawfully allowable.  The pleas in the complaint are denied by these opposite parties.  According to the 1^st opposite party, stating false things the complaint was filed experimentally and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  1^st opposite party admits that the complainant purchased a Maruti Celerio VXI AMT car from them, but all transactions regarding the above car were not conducted within the perview of this Hon’ble Forum.  Hence, this complaint does not come within the perview of this Forum. The statements made by the complainant in his complaint were not wholly true; the amounts shown in the complaint were not correct.  The complainant cannot claim any amount from these opposite parties.  The amount of Rs.11,048/- demanded in the complaint and on this amount interest demanded at 12% are not payable on or after 03.01.2016 and also compensation of Rs.30,000/- is not payable to him. 

In their version 2^nd opposite party contends that all the averments made by the complainant in his complaint are denied, unless otherwise expressly admitted.  According to the 2^nd opposite party, complainant did not enter in to any contract for sale or hiring of any service for consideration with the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant has not paid any amount towards price of the vehicle in dispute to this 2^nd opposite party and there is no privity  of contract between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence according to the 2^nd opposite party complainant is not a consumer in so far as sale of vehicle in question is concerned and the sale is not maintainable against the 2^nd opposite party and is liable to be dismissed.  The complainant has also failed to set out any specific allegation of deficiency in service/unfair trade practice against the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles and does not sell the vehicle directly to any individual consumer.  The 2^nd opposite party sells the vehicles to its dealers under the dealership agreement, the dealers sell the vehicles to their customers under their own invoice and sale certificate as per the terms and conditions entered into between the dealers and individual customers.  The 2^nd opposite party is not liable for any act of omission or commission on the part of dealers because the transaction of sale is independent between the dealers and their customers.  In the instant case the 2^nd opposite party contends that he has not committed any deficiency of service or involved in any unfair trade practice as per the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence 2^nd opposite party prays to the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint with cost to this opposite party. 

In the mean time opposite party submitted that preliminary issue of maintainability has to be heard.  In the interest of justice that submission was allowed.  After hearing the preliminary issue was answered in favour of the complainant.  Complainant filed chief affidavit.  Exts.A1 to A3 were marked from the side of the complainant, Exts.A2 and A3 marked in series.  Opposite parties did not file affidavit and no documents were marked from their side.  Complainant and opposite parties were heard. 

The following issues were framed in this case .

1.Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2.Whether there is any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties ?

3.If so, what are the relief and cost?

Issue 1

The 1^st issue of maintainability was answered in favour of the complainant.

Issues 2 & 3

The complainant purchased a new Maruti Celerio VXI AMT car from the 1^st opposite party who is the dealer of the 2^nd opposite party, who is the manufacturer of the car.  The vehicle invoice issued to the complainant was marked as Ext.A1 which indicates name of the purchaser of the vehicle, price accessible amount, chassis no, discount allowed, ex-showroom price etc.  Cost of the car including accessories, motor vehicles tax and insurance etc. was Rs.5,33,443/-; excluding Rs.2,000/- due to excess billing the amount payable by the complainant was Rs.5,31,443/-.  But the complainant made advance payments amounting in all to Rs.5,44,358/-.  Ext.A2 series marked are receipts issued by the 1^st opposite party for cheque payments made by the complainant between 21.12.2015 and 05.01.2016 which show total amount paid to 1^st opposite party by the complainant as Rs.5,44,358/-.  According to the complainant he had made excess payment of Rs.12,915/- to the dealer who did not give him refund so far, but the dealer granted him a cheque for Rs.1,867/- on 22.03.2016 by way of correction of excess bill for accessories issued to him, pleaded by the complainant.  The cheques issued to 1^st opposite party were encashed by them for which bank statements are produced which are marked as Ext.A3 series which indicate the dates on which complainant’s cheques were encashed by the 1^st opposite party.  In their version 1^st opposite party contended that the pleas in the complaint are denied by them and the complaint does not stand legally.  Since the amount demanded as per the complaint was not to be paid by the 1^st opposite party the complainant cannot claim any amount from them.  In the 2^nd opposite party’s version, it is contended that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party.  According to them they are the manufacturers of Maruti Suziki range of vehicles and do not sell the vehicles manufactured directly to any individual customer.  Therefore according to the 2^nd opposite party they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as per the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  In the instant case, the complainant has not paid any amount to the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party has not sold and delivered the disputed vehicle to the complainant.  Hence 2^nd opposite party is not liable to refund the alleged amount, interest etc. 

On perusing the documents filed, we observe that the complainant has paid to the 1^st opposite party Rs.5,44,358/- for the car purchased by him from the 1^st opposite party, but the total amount payable by the complainant to the dealer is only Rs.5,31,443/-, resulting in an excess payment of Rs.12,915/- by the complainant to the opposite parties which is to be refunded by the latter.  After adjusting a cheque of Rs.1,867/- granted by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant, excess payment of Rs.11,048/- should be refunded by opposite parties to the complainant.  Since the opposite parties have not so far refunded this excess amount inspite of 3 letters including one email sent by the complainant, we view that opposite parties are seen to have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

Hence complaint is allowed. 

We order 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to be liable jointly and severally to refund the excess amount of Rs.11,048/- (Rupees eleven thousand forty eighty only) collected from the complainant relating to the purchase of a new Maruti car from them; 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are also ordered to be jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant  Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant plus Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards litigation expenses incurred by him. 

 This order shall be executed within one month from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise the complainant can also realize interest at 9% p.a on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 17^th day of October 2017.

                                                                                          Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President 

                           Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

                          Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                    Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1  -  Tax/Vehicle Invoice Issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant

Ext.A2 series   – Receipts issued by 1^st opposite party for cheque  payments made by

                         the complainant between 21.12.2015 and 05.01.2016

Ext.A3 series -  Bank statements to show dates of encashment of cheques by the 1^st

                         opposite party

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost   

          Rs.1,000/-