DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V,
: SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N.K, MEMBER.
DATE OF FILING:05.03.2024.
CC/82/2024
Antony Martin M I, - Complainant
Mangaly House, Pathiri Nagar,
Dhoni, Olavakkode, Palakkad.
(Party-in-person)
Vs
1. S.R.Tranzcars Pvt. Ltd,, -Opposite Parties
No.496, Nava India Avinashi Road,
Peelamedu Coimbaore,
Tamilnadu-641 004.
(OP1-Ex-parte)
2. TATA Motors,
Oriental Building, 7J TATA Road,
Next to Ritz Hotel,
Mumbai-400 020.
(By Adv.M/s.V.Krishna Menon, B.Sulfikar Ali and Prinson Philip)
ORDER
BY SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.
1. The complainant had booked a TATA Nexon car from the 1st opposite party, who is an authorised dealer of the 2nd opposite party on 10.06.2022. The complainant paid Rs.21,000/- as advance. Later, on 07.06.2023, he cancelled the booking since the dealership of the 1st opposite party was terminated by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant requested the refund of the advance amount paid. But even after repeated reminders and follow up, the 1st opposite party did not refund the amount. He contacted the 1st and the 2nd opposite parties several times through phone, in person and through e-mail; but of no use.
The opposite parties, at the time of booking, assured that in case of cancellation of booking, the amount will be refunded in 5 working days from the date of request. The act of the opposite parties in retaining the advance amount paid by the complainant even after cancellation of the booking is deficiency in service on their part and it is an unfair trade practice.
So, he filed this complaint for getting the following reliefs;
1. Direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.21,000/- being the advance paid together with interest at 12% from 10.06.2022 to 14.02.2024 which comes to Rs.42,000/-.
2. To pay his travelling and other expenses amounting to Rs.10,000/-.
3. To pay a compensation of Rs.15,800/- for the mental agony and distress suffered by the complainant.
2. After admitting the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice to the 1st opposite party returned with endorsement ‘Left’ and the 2nd opposite party’s notice returned as ’Not known’. Then notice was served to them through e-mail. The 2nd opposite party appeared and filed version. But it was filed beyond the statutory period and hence, rejected. The 1st opposite party did not file version and they were set ex-parte. Since there was no representation for the 2nd opposite party, they also were set ex-parte. In the absence of version of the opposite parties, the complainant only has to prove a prima facie case against them.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked from his side.
Complainant’s case is for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.21,000/- paid to the opposite party on cancellation of the booking of the vehicle. Ext.A1 is the “order booking and commitment form” by which it can be seen that the complainant had booked a Nexon-EV-2.0 Max vehicle on 10.06.2022 and paid Rs.21,000/- as booking amount. Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by the 1st opposite party for the payment. Ext.A3(a) is the copy of the e-mail dated 07.06.2023 sent by the complainant to the opposite party stating his decision to cancel the booking and requesting the refund of advance amount and Ext.A3(b) is the letter dated 11.01.2024 send by the complainant to the opposite party asking for refund. Ext.A4 is the copy of the e-mail communications send by the complainant to the opposite party on different dates.
In the e-mail dated 18.08.2023, the opposite party had replied that the refund will happen in this month. Ext.A5 documents contain the “booking details” and “terms and conditions”. The terms and conditions (last point) states that in case of booking cancellation, refund request shall be sent to their mail along with Bank Account details and it will be processed in five working days from the date of receipt of refund request mail.
4. From these documents, it is clear that the complainant had send refund request and the opposite party did not pay the amount even after repeated requests. The complainant had succeeded in proving a prima-facie case against the opposite parties.
5. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in not refunding the advance amount. The act of the 1st opposite party had caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. So, the complainant is entitled to get compensation. Since the amount is transferred to the 1st opposite party, they have to refund the amount with interest, if the opposite party does not comply. Let the 2nd opposite party pay it and get it reimbursed to the 1st opposite party.
In this result, the complaint is allowed;
1. We direct the 1st opposite party to refund Rs.21,000/- together with 10% from 12.06.2023 till realisation.
2. To pay Rs.7,500/- for their deficiency in service Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss and Rs.2,500/- as cost of the litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof, from the date of the order, till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 11th day of September, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
VIDYA A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Order booking and Commitment form dated 10.06.2022.
Ext.A2:Receipt voucher of Rs.21,000/- dated 10.06.2022.
Ext.A3 series: Order cancellation requests dated 07.01.2023.
Ext.A4: The print out of the whatsaap message received by the complainant from Mr.Ganesh, the General Manager.
Ext.A5: Letter sent by the 1st opposite party regarding terms and condition of booking.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Document marked from the side of Court: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 2500/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
