Himachal Pradesh

Shimla

112/2012

Desh Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motor & Other - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2015

ORDER

1. General Manager, Tata Motors Limited, Shared Services, Pimpri, Pune-411018.
2. Manager, J.P. Motors 3S-Sales, Service & Spares Barog Bye Pass, Village Anji, District Solan,H.P
3. Rajneesh Verma, Branch Manager( Shimla Branch), Tavi Chowk, New Totu, Shimla, H.P.
4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Summer Hill, Shimla-5,H.P

 

…..Opposite parties

                 ………………………………………………………………………………..

                        CORAM

                                       Sh. K.S.Chandel, President

                                       Smt. Yogita Dutta, Member.

                                       Sh. Subneet Singh  Chauhan, Member

                ………………………………………………………………………………..

                    For the complainant:              Sh. Arun Negi, Advocate vice

                                                                         Sh.Sanjeev Negi, Advocate

                     For the Opposite Party:         Sh. Sanjay Gandhi, Advocate

                      OP-1

                      For the Opposite Party:        Sh. Yogesh Thakur, Advocate

                      OP-2&3 (though ex-parte)

                      For the Opposite Party:       Ms. Bhavna Kaushal, Advocate vice

                      OP-4                                       Sh. Anil Tanwar, Advocate.                       

              ………………………………………………………………………………..

                   ORDER:.

   K.S.CHANDEL,( District Judge)  President

The complainant Des Raj has preferred this complaint under section 11 & 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties ( hereinafter referred as OPs for short)  claiming deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by the OPs. The complainant  has pleaded and claimed that he booked a Tata Nano car by depositing Rs.3,000/- in the year 2009 under the scheme offered by the Tata Group and the OP had allotted unique identification number vide Annexure C-1 and in pursuance thereof the complainant was informed to get the delivery of the vehicle between January,2011 to March, 2011 vide Annexure C-2 through OP-2. The complainant has claimed that he applied for loan which was sanctioned  of Rs. 95,000/- by the OP-4 vide Annexure C-3,but, the OP has failed to deliver the vehicle as per assurance and he was asked to  purchase the vehicle from the open market despite the fact that the bank had started deduction of installments to the recovery of loan despite his representation Annexure C-4. The complainant has claimed that he served with the representation, with the OP-2 dated 7.4.2011 Annexure C-5 but, it was never replied and as such, it amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by the OP and, as such, the complainant has sought direction to the OPs  to deliver the vehicle  or to refund the amount  with interest including compensation for mental  harassment  as well as litigation expenses. The complaint is duly supported with an affidavit of complainant. 

2.            In reply by OP-1  has taken preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. On merits,  the OP-1 has pleaded and claimed that the cheque dated 9.12.2010 had been sent to the OP-2 to be given to the complainant,  but, the complainant did not take the same as per entry Annexure R-3. The OP-1 has further claimed that after filing the present complaint another cheque dated 16.7.2012 was issued to the complainant for the amount of Rs.95,000/- and has further claimed that the complainant is not entitled for any interest on cancellation of the booking  of the vehicle in question, as per terms and conditions of the scheme. The OP-1  has denied any deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and, as such, has sought for the dismissal of complaint. The reply of OP-1  is duly accompanied  with an affidavit of  Manager (Law).

3.            The OP-2 and OP-3 have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability. On merits  the OP-2 and 3 have pleaded  and claimed that the authorized dealer  has no role to the booking of the car with OP-1 being manufacturer. The OP-2 and OP-3 have further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice as pleaded and claimed by the complainant and, as such, has sought for the dismissal of complaint. The reply of OP-2 and OP-3  is duly accompanied  with an affidavit of  Managing Director.

4.            The OP-4 in its reply has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability as well as liability of the OP-4. On merits,  the OP-4 has pleaded and claimed that the loan, was applied by the complainant which was sanctioned  and, as such, the complainant is liable  to pay the interest to the loan amount and, as such, the installment of loan recovery is to be withdrawn from the account of complainant, as such, the OP-4 has denied any deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice as pleaded and claimed by the complainant and thereby has sought for the dismissal of complaint. The reply of OP-4  is duly accompanied  with an affidavit of  Branch Manager, State Bank of India.

5.            We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and considered the record carefully.

6.            The complainant has brought on record cheque Annexure C-6 for Rs. 95,000/- issued by Tata Motors in favour of the complainant dated 16.7.2012 which has been sent to the complainant vide letter Annexure C-7 dated 11.10.2012 thorough speed post envelop Annexure C-8 and it was delivered on 22.10.2012 to the complainant after the period to encash this cheque had lapsed.  It is not disputed by the OP-1 that the complainant has paid Rs.95,000/- to purchase the vehicle manufactured by the OP-1 and to be delivered by OP-2 being dealer and this vehicle was never delivered to the complainant  and, as such, the OP-1 has pleaded and claimed that firstly the cheque of Rs.95,000/- dated 9.12.2010 was sent to OP-2 to be delivered to the complainant , but no such fact has been established and brought on record by the OP-1 or OP-2. Therefore,  the second cheque which has been pleaded and claimed by the OP-1 of Rs.95,000/- sent to the complainant on 16.7.2012 and has been brought on record by the complainant Annexure C-6, but, it could not be enchashed as the same was delivered vide Annexure C-8 to the complainant  on 22.10.2012 after the statutory period to encash this cheque by the complainant. Therefore, the liability of the complainant  of Rs. 95,000/- by the OP-1 is admitted fact as well as established  and proved on record and, as such,  the failure to return of this amount  of Rs.95,000/-  by the OP-1  to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice since no vehicle has been delivered  to the complainant despite the fact that the complainant had raised loan from the OP-4, the recovery of which is being taking place. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for Rs. 95,000/-  from the OP-1 with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.5.4.2012 till realization. The complainant is also entitled for damages for mental harassment including litigation expenses of Rs 25,000/-  from the OP-1 who is directed to pay this amount within 45 days from the receipt to the copy of the order.

7.         However, there is no cause against OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4 by the complainant  being OP-2 and OP-3 as dealers who were to deliver the vehicle on making available by the OP-1 manufacturer and the OP-4  has provided loan to the complainant and, as such,  the  OP-2,OP-3 and OP-4 are discharged. Hence, the complaint is ordered to be allowed against   OP-1only. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.

Announced on this 28^th   day  of  February ,2015

 

                                       ( K.S.Chandel)

                                    President

 

 

                                                                                                                               (Subneet Singh Chauhan)

                                                                                                                                                                            Member

(Mahajan)