IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.82/2013 (Filed on 21.06.2013)
Between:
Harikumar. P.G,
Pazheeckal House,
Mallappally East.P.O.,
Murani,
Mallappally Taluk.
(By Adv. Prasad George) ….. Complainant
And:
1. Mr. Shaji Ayyappan,
Sales Manager,
Sarathy Auto Cars,
Kuttoor Thiruvalla.
2. Sarathy Auto Cars,
Rep. by the Manager,
Pallimukku, Kollam.
(By Adv. T. Harikrishnan)
3. The Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Rep. by Territory Sales Manager,
2nd Floor, Titus Towers,
N.H.47, By-Pass,
Palarivattom,
Cochin – 682 024. ….. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts of this complaint is as follows:- The complainant is a customer of the opposite parties. The 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer of Maruti Cars. 2nd opposite party is the authorized dealer of the 3rd opposite party and the 1st opposite party is the Sales Manager of the 2nd opposite party’s branch at Kuttoor, Thiruvalla. The complainant placed an order for a Maruti Swift Desire DD 1 Car on 07.09.2012 through 1st and 2nd opposite parties vide order No.SOB 12002550 and he had remitted Rs.6,64,228/- on the advise of the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter, during January 2013 the complainant had paid an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- as the enhanced price of 2013 model vehicle as demanded by the 1st opposite party. On the basis of the booking and the payments, 2nd opposite party delivered the car on 29.01.2013 along with invoice dated 24.01.2013 for Rs.6,84,228.71 and Form 21 Sale Certificate No.VSL 12003930 dated 29.01.2013. As per Form 21 Sale Certificate the month and year of manufacture of the car is January 2013. When the said vehicle was produced before the Sub Regional Transport Officer, Mallappally for registration he found that the month and year of manufacture is December 2012 though it is shown as January 2013 in Form 21 Sale Certificate. So the registering authority disallowed to register the car as January 2013 Model. So the registration was delayed for 6 months and later it was registered on 14.06.2013 as a 2012 Model vehicle. The complainant’s booking was for getting a 2013 Model vehicle. But opposite parties deliberately delivered a 2012 Model car by saying that the car is 2013 Model. Further, opposite parties collected the price of a 2013 Model Car after delivering a 2012 Model Car, which is much less than the amount collected from the complainant. Opposite parties purposely evaded to deliver other documents like Form 22 and vehicle data sheet so as to misguide the complainant. They also purposely made false entries in the sale letter for misguiding the complainant by entering the year of manufacture as 2013 January after delivering a 2012 Model Car. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the registration of the car was delayed for 6 months and they have collected excess price and thus the complainant was put to financial loss and mental agony. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and they are liable to the complainant for the same. A legal notice was also sent to the opposite parties on 02.05.2013 for redressing the grievances of the complainant. But they have not turned up for redressing the grievances of the complainant. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties for delivering a 2013 Model car and compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- for the losses sustained to the complainant from 29.01.2013 to 14.06.2013 as he could not use the car till its registration.
3. 1st and 2nd opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version with the following main contentions: They admitted the transactions with the complainant. But according to them, the 2nd opposite party is the dealer of the 3rd opposite party and every transactions were made between the 2nd opposite party and the complainant and everything is done at Kollam where the 2nd opposite party is carrying their business and the 1st opposite party is in charge of the booking extension counter of the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party is discharging only the function of that of a postman of the 2nd opposite party. Moreover, there is a pre-condition in the order booking form to the effect that the exclusive territorial jurisdiction pertaining to the booking process shall be within the territorial limits of dealership city which is at Kollam. Therefore according to the opposite parties, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction for entertaining this complaint as none of the opposite parties are carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. So this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Apart from the above contention, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties contended that they have not collected any excess amount from the complainant other than the actual price of a Maruti Swift Desire DD1 Car as on the date of delivery of the car, which is Rs.6,84,220/-. The complainant made booking on 07.09.2012 which is registered with the 3rd opposite party on 13.09.2012. The car was ready for allotment on 25.01.2013 and it was delivered to the complainant on 29.01.2013 along with all necessary documents for permanent registration. The month and year of manufacture of this car is December 2012 and it was delivered on 29.01.2013. Model details will be decided on the basis of list of chassis numbers supplied by the manufacturer and not by the date of invoice drawn up by the manufacturer to the dealer. The registering authority will verify the chassis number supplied by the manufacturer for deciding the year of manufacturing of the car. The date of invoice is irrelevant with regard to the year of manufacture as the year of manufacture of the complainant’s car is 2012. The said car cannot be registered as a 2013 Model by the registering authority. The vehicle in question was delivered without any delay with temporary registration along with all statutory documents for effecting permanent registration by the complainant. The complainant had unilaterally and illegally delayed the permanent registration without the knowledge of the opposite parties. There is no laches or negligence from the opposite parties. In the matter of permanent registration, complainant is responsible for the delayed permanent registration. Opposite parties has not committed any offences under Sec.36A(1)(b) the MRCP Act and there is no element of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The notice received by the complainant was promptly replied. All the allegations are false and opposite parties has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice or any other illegal acts. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. With the above contentions, opposite parties 1 and 2 prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
4. 3rd opposite party is exparte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
- Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
- Reliefs and Costs?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral depositions of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B5. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. Point No.1:- Though opposite parties raised a contention regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, they have not adduced any evidence to substantiate their contention. At the same time, opposite parties admitted that the 1st opposite party is the booking extension counter of the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party is working for the 2nd opposite party. So it is clear that 1st opposite party is an agent of the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party is also doing its business at Thiruvalla, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. Therefore, we find that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
8. Point Nos.2 & 3:- The complainant’s main allegations are as follows:- He placed his booking on 07.09.2012 for getting a 2013 Model Maruti Swift Desire Car on the assurance of the opposite parties. The car was delivered on 29.01.2013. Instead of delivering a 2013 Model car, opposite parties delivered only a 2012 Model Car. Further, opposite parties collected Rs.6,84,228/- by saying that the said price is the price of 2013 Model Car. But the price of a 2012 Model Car is only Rs.6,64,228/-. Thus opposite parties collected an excess amount of Rs.20,000/- fraudulently by saying and issuing a false Form 21 Sale Certificate in which the month and year of manufacture is entered as January 2013 whereas the month and year of manufacture of the delivered car is 2012 December. Because of the false Form 21 Sale Certificate the permanent registration was delayed for about 6 months. All the above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and cheating which caused financial loss, mental agony and other inconveniences to the complainant and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced are marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the copy of invoice dated 24.01.2013 for Rs.6,84,228/- issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2 is the copy of Form 21 Sale Certificate dated 29.01.2013 issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3 is the copy of Form 22 issued by the 3rd opposite party in respect of the vehicle in question. Ext.A4 is the copy of the vehicle data sheet dated 29.01.2013 issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A5 is the copy of the legal notice dated 02.05.2013 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext.A5(a), A5(b) and A5(c) are the postal receipts of Ext.A5 notice. Ext.A6 is the reply notice dated 13.05.2013 issued for the opposite parties.
10. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant had placed his booking on 07.09.2012 and the vehicle was available for delivery only by 03.01.2013 with 3rd opposite party and after completing the formalities the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 29.01.2013. As per the terms and conditions of the booking the price of the vehicle will be the actual price prevailing on the date of delivery. Accordingly, opposite parties collected Rs.6,84,228/- from the complainant being the actual price prevailed as on the date of the invoice of the said car and hence they argued that the allegation of excess price is baseless. Further, there was no assurance or undertaking by the opposite parties for delivering a 2013 Model Car as claimed by the complainant. Cars booked by the customers will be delivered on the availability and on the basis of the priority of booking. In this case, the complainant’s car was allotted by the 3rd opposite party only on 03.01.2013 and it was delivered on 29.01.2013 by completing all formalities which are required. The 3rd opposite party cannot allot a 2013 Model Car on the 3rd day of January 2013. So it is clear that the car allotted and delivered is a 2012 Model Car. However due to certain mistake, the year and month of manufacture is recorded as 2013 January in Form 21 sale Certificate issued to the complainant. But later it is realized that there was a mistake in Form 21 sale certificate and it caused delay in registration. On realizing the said mistake, opposite parties had done everything to get the registration immediately. But the complainant was adamant in getting his car registered as 2013 model which is not allowed by the registering authority. The complainant’s above said stand was the sole reason for the delay caused in the registration. Therefore they argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service and prays for dismissing the complaint.
11. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, 1st opposite party filed a proof affidavit and 5 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced are marked as Ext B1 to B5. Ext. B1 to B5 are various invoices issued by 1st opposite party in the name of different purchasers of similar cars including the complainant from 13.06.2012 to 21.01.2013 for showing price of the cars prevailed at the time of its delivery.
12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the booking, sale, purchase and delivery of the car in question. The disputes is with regard to the collection of excess price from the complainant and OP’s delivered a 2012 model car instead of delivering a 2013 model car by giving a sale certificate showing the model of the car as 2013 which delayed the registration for about 6 months. But opposite parties denied the said allegations by saying that they have not collected any excess price and they have collected only the actual price prevailed at the date of delivery of the car and the car delivered is 2012 model and the entries in all records except form 21 sale certificate is 2012 and the entry in the sale certificate as 2013 model is a mistake and the delay caused in the registration is due to the adamant stand taken by the complainant for getting the registration certificate with the entry as 2013 model for his 2012 model car.
13. It is true that the complainant had placed his booking on 7.09.2012. The complainant’s first allegation is that his booking was for getting a 2013 model car. But the complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove his above said allegation. The next allegation of the complainant is that opposite parties collected an amount of Rs.6,84,228/- as the price of the car which is the price of a 2013 model car where as the price of a 2012
model car is only Rs.6,64,228/- and hence the opposite parties collected an excess amount o Rs.20,000/- from the complainant as the car delivered to him is of 2012 model. But on a perusal of Ext B1 to B5 there was price variation from 13.06.2012 to 21.01.2013. From this it is clear that the price variation is not based on the year of manufacture and is based on other factors. Further the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the price of a Maruti car is based on the year of manufacturing. Thus we found that the above said allegation of the complainant is not sustainable.
14. The next allegation of the complainant is that the permanent registration of his car was delayed for about 6 months due to the issuance of a false form 21 sale certificate showing the year of manufacture as 2013 January after delivering a 2012 model car. The argument of the opposite party is that the year and month of manufacturing noted in form 21 sale certificate is a mistake and on realizing the said mistake they have done everything that are required for getting the registration of the complainant’s car and there was no obstructions for getting its registration with the entry in the R.C book showing the year and month of manufacturing as 2012 December. The complainant’s adamant stand for getting his car registered as 2013 model alone is the reason for delaying the registration and hence opposite parties are not liable for the said delay.
15. It is pertinent to note that complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the entry seen in Form 21 sale certificate showing the year and month of manufacturing as 2013 January is made willfully and it is not a mistake. The complainant also failed to adduce any evidence to show that the said entry was made simply for cheating and misguiding the complainant. All the other documents related to the transactions including Ext- A IV vehicle data sheet also shows that the vehicle delivered to the complainant is a 2012 model. Moreover complainant has not adduced any evidence for showing that the delay in getting the registration was due to the fault of the opposite parties. So we are of the view that there is no negligence from the part of the opposite parties for the delay in getting the registration. However from the facts and circumstances of this case it can be seen that the complainant had sustained some difficulties and inconveniences due to the mistake occurred in form 21 sale certificate with
regard to the year of manufacture of the vehicle. Opposite parties being service providers such type of mistakes are not expected. The said mistake, no doubt caused some inconvenience to the complainant. But the complainant has not adduced any evidence to support his claim for compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- per month from 29.01.2013 to 14.06.2013. So the complainant is entitled to get reasonable compensation only for his inconveniences. Therefore this complaint can be allowed in part against opposite parties 1 and 2 alone as nothing had been brought in evidence against 3rd OP.
16. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed, thereby the 2nd opposite party being the principal of 1st opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 20 days from the receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 10% today till the realization of whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of February, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : P.G. Harikumar
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Copy of invoice dated 24.01.2013 for Rs.6,84,228/- issued by the 2nd opposite
party in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Copy of Form 21 Sale Certificate dated 29.01.2013 issued by the 2nd opposite
party in the name of the complainant.
A3 : Copy of Form 22 issued by the 3rd opposite party.
A4 : Copy of the vehicle data sheet dated 29.01.2013 issued by the 2nd opposite party
in the name of the complainant.
A5 : Copy of the legal notice dated 02.05.2013 issued by the complainant to the
opposite parties.
A5(a), A5(b) & A5(c) : Postal receipts of Ext.A5 notice.
A6 : Reply notice dated 13.05.2013 issued by the opposite parties.
Witness examined on the side of the Opposite Party
DW1 : Shaji Ayyappan.
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party:
B1 to B5 : Price variation from 13.06.2012 to 21.01.2013.
(By Order) (Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Harikumar. P.G, Pazheeckal House, Mallappally East.P.O., Murani,
Mallappally Taluk.
(2) Mr. Shaji Ayyappan, Sales Manager, Sarathy Auto Cars,
Kuttoor Thiruvalla.
(3) Manager, Sarathy Auto Cars, Pallimukku, Kollam.
(4) Territory Sales Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., 2nd Floor, Titus Towers,
N.H.47, By-Pass, Palarivattom, Cochin – 682 024.
(5) The Stock File.
.
