IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of June 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 292/2021 (Filed on 08/12/2021)
Complainant : Binumon.V,
S/o Vasudevan Nair,
Krishnapriya House,
Ruby Nagar, Kalathipady,
Manganam P.O, Kottayam – 686 018.
(By Adv: Akash K.R)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1. The Manager,
Sai Service,
Near Piravom Government Hospital,
Piravom – 686 664. (By Advs: Anto Thomas & T.N Rajesh)
2. The Managing Director,
Maruti Suzuki India Limited,
Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070.
O R D E R
SRI. MANULAL V.S, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant who is the Principal of Indian Community School, Kuwait believing the assurance given by the executives of the first opposite party on 15-08-2021 booked a S-Presso Car which is manufactured by the second opposite party for an amount of Rs. 5,54,195/- . The manager and the executives of the first opposite party promised the complainant that they would deliver the vehicle within two months of booking. The first opposite party accepted the booking and received an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant and issued an order booking commitment vehicle list and booklet regarding the Maruthi Zuzuki vehicles to the complainant.
The first opposite party though promised to deliver the vehicle within two months from the date of booking the first opposite party so far has not deliver the vehicle to the complainant. Though on several occasions the complainant contacted the first opposite party for the delivery of the vehicle and the first opposite party is evading the delivery of the vehicle over lame excuses. The first opposite party even blames the second opposite party for the non delivery of the vehicle. On 18-11-2021 the complainant issued an e-mail to the first opposite party demanding the delivery of the booked vehicle to which the first opposite party issued a reply e-mail stating that it is the non-supply of electronic components that is delaying the delivery of the vehicle by the second opposite party. It is averred in the complaint that the act of the opposite parties in not delivering the booked vehicle to the complainant as promised is a fault, imperfection, short coming and inadequacy in service which is to be maintained by the opposite parties and amounts to deficiency in service and further amounts to unfair trade practice. Due to the act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by opposite parties complainant’s wife has to depend on autorikshaws and taxis for herself and her children and caused much hardship and mental agony. The opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the same. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to deliver the vehicle at the earliest and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.
Upon notice opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed separate versions.
Version of the first opposite party as follows:
The averment in the complaint that the complainant informed the manager of the first opposite party about his urgency for the vehicle as the schools for his children are about to start and he would also depart soon and the manager and executive of the first opposite party promised the complainant that they would deliver the vehicle within two months is not true. The further averment that the value of the vehicle is agreed at Rs. 5,54,195/- is also not true. As per Performa invoice /order booking form the complainant agreed that he shall pay the actual price prevailing at the time of tax invoice of the vehicle.
The opposite party allotted Maruti S-Presso VXI+AGS vehicle to the complainant on 14-08-2021 and requested the complainant to pay the balance price of the car for invoicing the same and for giving delivery of the vehicle to the complainant. The first opposite party informed the complainant on 08-09-2021 that there will be a price hike for Maruti vehicles and requested to pay the balance payment of the vehicle for invoicing and to complete the registration formalities as per the price mentioned in the order booking form. But the complainant was waiting for his wife’s willingness to purchase the vehicle. Due to this complainant failed to remit the balance sale consideration within time. Relation manager of the first opposite party also communicated the de-allotment procedure to the complainant that if the vehicle is de-allotted, new vehicle would be allotted only as per new price. As customer did not make the payment the vehicle was de-allotted on 14-09-2021. Without paying the balance price of the vehicle on 25-9-2021 the complainant through Whatsapp communication to the relationship manager of the first opposite party to make arrangements to return the booking amount of Rs. 5,000/-. On 17-10-2021 the complainant again sent a Whatsapp communication to the relationship manager of the first opposite party stating that his wife is interested to buy the same model car and demanded to process the same. But the complainant was not willing to pay the new increased price of the car. By that time due to prevailing Covid pandemic situation there occurred supply constraint of electronic components that were to be fitted in the vehicle due to shortage of semiconductors, which had impacted vehicle production of second opposite party. In the email dated 6-11-2021 the said fact was intimated to the complainant. There is no delay on the part of the first opposite party in delivering the vehicle to the complainant. It is submitted in the version that only due to the adamant stand of the complainant in initial time as he is not ready to pay actual price of the car, the vehicle could not be delivered to the complainant much earlier. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party.
Second opposite party filed version contending as follows:
Complainant is not a consumer of the second opposite party. The transaction transpired between the complainant and the first opposite party wherein the second opposite party either privy nor has any role or liability. The second opposite party sells the vehicle manufactured by it to its dealers under the dealership agreement, the dealers of the second opposite party sell the vehicles to their customers against their own contract for sale by their own invoice and sale certificates. The second opposite party neither invoices nor earmarks any individual vehicle in favour of any individual customer at the time of dispatch from its factory to its dealers. Therefore the second opposite party has no involvement in the transaction of sale of vehicle or receipt of booking amount from the individual customer. The relationship between the second opposite party and the first opposite party is that on principal to principal basis.
It is submitted in the version that due to shortage of electronic chips has impacted automobile industry, all across and the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional. The second opposite party has not made any representation regarding the delivery of the vehicle nor taken consideration thereof. The first opposite party is not an agent of the second opposite party. Hence the second opposite party has no role or liability with respect to the delivery of the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the second opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1 and A2. P.G. Sunil who is the General Manager of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits B1 to B4 from the side of the first opposite party. No oral or documentary evidence from the part of the second opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points :
Whether the complainant has succeed to prove unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and entitled for any relief ?
POINT Nos. 1 & 2 :-
There is no dispute on the fact that on 15-08-2021 the complainant had booked an S-Presso car with first opposite party and paid an advance amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the first opposite party. The main grievance of the complainant is that though the first opposite party agreed to deliver the car within two months they did not deliver the same.
Exhibit B1 is the copy of Order Booking Form/Commitment check list. On perusal of B1 we can see that the complainant had booked an S-Presso VXI Plus AGS on 13-08-2021 with the first opposite party. It is written in the B1 that the tentative waiting period is 4 to 6 weeks from the date of booking. Exhibit B2 is the order booking form which was prepared on 13-08-2021. On perusal of Exhibit B2 we can see that the complainant had paid Rs. 5,000/- vide cheque on 13-08-2021 to the first opposite party. The tentative date of the delivery is recorded in Exhibit B2 as 24-09-2021.
The complaint was resisted by the first opposite party stating that they allotted Maruti S-Presso VXI+AGS vehicle to the complainant on 14-08-2021 and requested the complainant to pay the balance price of the car however he did not pay the balance amount.
As per the Exhibit A1 preliminary information sheet the total cost of the vehicle was Rs.5,94,195/- in which Rs.5,000/- was paid and the balance amount was Rs.5,54,195/-. The further allegation is that the first opposite party mislead the complainant by saying that the delivery of the vehicle was postponed due to the non-supply of electronic components that is delaying the delivery of the vehicle by the second opposite party. Thereafter the first opposite party and staff of the opposite party No.1 on several occasions delayed the delivery of vehicle.
On perusal of Ext.B2 booking order it is revealed that the delivery of the vehicle was offered in a tentative date on 24-09-2021. Booking date is 13-08-2021. As per Exhibit B2 the period offered for delivery of vehicle is attained on 24-09-2021. Of course we have to believe the allegation raised by the complainant regarding the date of delivery of the vehicle ie,, on 24-09-2021. If so, the opposite parties are liable to pay the amount which the complainant had already remitted to the first opposite party. Besides that it is the act of the opposite parties which lead the complainant to file this case and thereby the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint we are not ordering cost in this case. These points are found accordingly.
In the result complaint stands allowed in part..
(a). First Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) to the complainant with 9% from 24-09-2021 within 30 days of receipt of this order.
(b). The complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand only) from the First Opposite Party as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If not complied as directed, the amount will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of June, 2023
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant
Ext. A1 - Preliminary Information Sheet issued by the Ist opposite party
Ext.A2 - Maruti Suzuki Arena booklet
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Copy of Order Booking/Commitment Checklist
Ext.B2 - Copy of Order Booking Form
Ext.B3 - E-mail communications dated 18/11/2021 sent by the
complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ext.B4 - Copy of Screenshot of Whatsapp messages of complainant to
the Relation Manager of 1st opposite party
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
