IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 78/2012
Monday, the 17th day of November, 2014
Petitioner : Sankarapillai,
Krishnavilasam,
Kuttapuzha P.O.
Thiruvalla.
(Adv. G. Rejith Kumar and
Adv. K. Jasmine)
Vs.
Opposite Parties 1) Tata Motors,
Rep. by Marketing and
Customer Support,
Passenger Car Business Unit,
One Forbes, 5th Floor,
Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg,
Fort Mumbai – 400023.
(Adv. V. Krishna Menon,
Adv. P.J. Anilkumar, Adv. Prinsun Philip, Adv. M.K. Jose)
2) Proprietor,
St. Antony’s Motors India Ltd.
K.K. Road, Vadavathoor P.O.
Kottayam – 686 001.
(Adv. George Emmanuel Podipara)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 07/03/2012 is as follows. He had booked for a new car (TATA NANO) from the 2nd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 24/04/2009 through the State Bank of India, Changanacherry Branch. The complainant’s application number was 110538421 and an amount of Rs.95,000/- was advanced through bank as per the terms and vide allotment letter through the website, it was informed that a TATA NANO – Bs3 IVORY WHITE car has been allotted and the delivery will be done in July 2010 through the 2nd opposite party. After July 2010, the complainant personally and through phone contacted the opposite party, several times informing the non-delivery of vehicle, which was not at all personally replied. But the opposite parties never taken any steps for settled the claim of the complainant. There is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version. The version filed by the 1st opposite party is contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant had booked for the Tata Nano car after going through the terms and conditions with respect to the booking of the car and he is bound by the terms and conditions in the order booking form. The complainant had cancelled the booking made by him. In terms with the conditions of booking, the amount paid towards booking of the vehicle had been refunded to the bank of the complainant. The 1st opposite party having already refunded the booking amount, there is no merit on basis in the allegation of the complaint that there has been negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The version filed by the 2nd opposite party is contending as follos. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 2nd opposite party is an unnecessary party to the cause of action. The complainant has no cause of action against the 2nd opposite party. The complainant had no relation of any business, transaction, receipt of payment, and service with the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party has not made any advertisement for sale of Tata Nano. The complainant had not booked any Tata Nano Car through the 2nd opposite party. The complainant had cancelled his booking for Tata Nano car with the 1st opposite party immediately on receiving the allotment letter from the 1st opposite party. The complainant had not approached the 2nd opposite party even after receiving the allotment letter. Since the complainant cancelled his order of booking, nothing was intimated to 2nd opposite party by 1st opposite party to do any processing further in the matter. The complainant had never visited the office of the 2nd opposite party. There was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents, which are marked as exhibits A1 to A4. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have not adduced any evidence except their version.
Heard the counsel for the complainant. We have gone through the complainant, version, documents and evidence. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not refund the booking amount of Rs.95,000/- (being the booking amount of Tata Nano Car) even after cancelled the booking. According to him, he had contacted several times before the 1st and 2nd opposite parties for refund the booking amount, but the opposite parties have not take any steps for the refund. From the available documents and evidences it can be seen that the booking amount of the Tata Nano Car (ie.95,000/-) was not refunded to the complainant even after cancelled the booking. So we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the refund of the booking amount of the Tata Nano Car. The 1st opposite party liable to refund the booking amount to the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows.
We direct the 1st opposite party to refund Rs.95,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of cancellation till payment and pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17th day of November 2014.
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1 : Photocopy of application form booking no.110538421
Ext.A2 : Photocopy of NOC from SBT, Changanacherry.
Ext.A3 : Photocopy of allotment letter
Ext.A4 : Photocopy of lr.dtd.30/07/2010 from petitioner to Tata Motors,
Mumbai.
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
