IN THECONSUMER 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. 79/13
Tuesday the 25th day of November, 2014
Petitioner : Shyni James,
W/o James Kurian,
Pemala House,
Athirampuzha PO, Kottayam.
2) James Kurian,
-do-
(Adv. K.J.Kurian & Boby George Kurian)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1) Tata Motors,
Bombay House,
24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400001.
(Adv. V.Krishna Memon, P.J.Anilkumar
Prinsun Philip&M.K.Jose)
2) Kulathunkal Motors, Toll Junction,
Chakai-Kazhakoottam Byepass Road,
Anayara PO,ThiruvananthapuramDist.
(Adv. C.R. Sindhumol)
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 27/03/2013 is as follows:
The complainants are husband and wife and they have already using a Tata Indica Vista Car manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The complainants approached the 2nd opposite party, the distributor and they offered to take the old Tata Indica Vista in exchange of the Vista diesel LX model to be purchased from them. They fixed an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- as the exchange price of the old vehicle which included an exchange bonus of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5000/- a special discount for the new vehicle. On 20-12-12 a representative from 2nd opposite party bought a buyer and took the vehicle after handing over an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- excluding the exchange bonus and the special discount. The remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- was to be paid by the 2nd opposite party after purchase of the new car. A slight delay occurred in sanctioning the loan from LIC’s part due to successive holidays and when the complainant’s approached 2nd opposite party in November, they informed the complainants that the exchange bonus will be reduced to Rs.20,000/- for which the complainants were not amenable. During this time there was lot of advertisement in the local dailies promising lot of offers and discounts in connection with Deepavali for Tata Cars, but none was offered to the complainant by 2nd opposite party. On 20-11-12 for the quotation rate of Rs.5,60,286/- a cheque for Rs.5,35,286/- was given which was minus the company discount of Rs.20,000/- and advance amount of Rs.5000/-. On 26-11-12 when the complainants came to take delivery of the vehicle they were handed over a bill for Rs.5,22,786/- dtd
22-11-12 instead of the bill for Rs.,60,286/-. The Kottayam office of 2nd opposite party could not give a satisfactory explanation for this and on their promise the correct bill will be delivered in no time, complainants took delivery of the vehicle. After more than a week the complainant received a single bill for Rs.5,60,286/- from Kulathinkal motors Kottayam, instead of two sets of bill which is the common practice. Inspite of demanded the second bill was not given by the Kulathinkal Motors. Hence the 1st complainant failed to submit the bill to LIC so as to complete the loan procedures with them. The vehicle was registered on
11-12-12 as KL-05-AF-7965. The said car is having Chassis No.MAT611425CPG47437 and Engine No.100A2000-0285119.
The 2nd complainant took the vehicle to Focus Motors Kottayam an authorized service centre of 1st opposite party, as 2nd opposite party was not having a service centre at Kottayam. At Focus Motors, to the utter dismay of the 2nd complainant he found that the due date for the 1st service of the car was over in September 2012 and therefore they cannot avail the free service. Hence he paid for the 1st service as demanded by the Focus Motors. Thereafter we checked with the website of Tata Motors and to her surprise found that the vehicle having the chasis number and registration number of 1st complainant’s vehicle was in the name of one Keerthi.S.Das. They enquired with Kulathunkal motors regarding the new development, but they could not give a satisfactory answer. The 2nd complainant sent several letters and emails to both Kulathunkal Motors and Tata Motors, but every time he was redirected to some other person who could not offer an explanation. The 2nd opposite party also failed to pay the unpaid exchange bonus of Rs.30,000/. The 2nd opposite party only paid an amount of Rs.14350/- under the said account after repeated requests from the complainant. An amount of Rs. 15,650/- is still due to the complainant from the 2nd opposite party. The performance of the vista car given to the complainant is also not up to mark. The mileage is very low compared to that of the old car and the promises made by Tata Motors in the advertisements. The complainant suspect that the defective car which was much earlier invoiced was thrust upon her by 2nd opposite party with the consent and connivance of the price of a new. The complainants are entitled to get a brand new car instead of the old defective car provided by the opposite parties. The complainants had to undergo a lot of mental agony and suffered huge monetary loss only because of the 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 as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainants are not consumers under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The relationship between the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party is of principal to Principal and the 1st opposite party is in no way liable or responsible for the alleged transactions between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party instructed to state that the complainants had been provided with a concession of Rs.30,838/- while delivering the vehicle and the invoice issued to the complainants would disclose this fact. There is no deficiency of service on the part of 1st opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The version filed by the 2nd opposite party is as follows. Though the 2nd opposite party the old 2008 model vista was sold out for Rs.3,40,000/-. The complainant booked the Tata Indica Vista Car on 20-11-12 by a booking amount of Rs.5000/-. In the booking order form itself stated that the price and offer only at the time of delivery of the vehicle. The complainant booked in the month of October and taken delivery of the car in the month of Novermber. Tata scheme is for every month and month to month the scheme is changed. The complainant made a payment by cheque bearing No.460039 dtd 21-11-2012 fro Rs.5,35,286/- drawn on Axix Bank Kottayam and a booking amount of Rs.5000/-. The complainant made a total payment of Rs.5,40,286/-. The ex-show room price of the vehicle is Rs.5,60,296/- and registration and pre-delivery inspection handling charge Rs.3000/- as a total of Rs.5,63,286/-. The 2nd opposite party given Rs.9,500/- as exchange bonus and Rs.20,000/- as cash discount and Rs.8,000/- as other discount as total discount of Rs.37,500/- and Rs.14,500/- was refund to the complainant as balance amount of Rs.5,22,786/- is the actual amount was arrived for after deducting Rs.37,500/- from the ex-showroom price of Rs.5,60,286/-. The vehicle having chasis No.MAT611425CPG47437 is the name of the complainant itself. The 2nd opposite party never forced or induced the complainant to purchase the vehicle. The complainant had purchased the vehicle solely on her free will and accord. There was no misrepresentation by the 2nd opposite party. It is affirmed that the 2nd opposite party had delivered a new vehicle to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A10.
Heard both sides. The 2nd opposite party filed Argument notes. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party had delivered the vehicle to the complainants the engine number and chasis number are in the name some other person. According to the complainants the vehicle sold to them was already used some other person. Moreover the opposite parties has not given the offered exchange bonus to the complainants. The opposite parties has taken a contention that the vehicle sold to the complainants are no defects as alleged by them. According to the opposite parties the engine number and chasis number of the vehicle in disputes was not already registered some other person. Moreover the opposite parties taken a specific contention that the exchange bonus was not in existence at the time of purchase the vehicle. From the available documents and evidences it can be seen that the exchange bonus was not given to the petitioners. From Ext.A8 it can be seen that the vehicle in disputes (KL-5-AF-7965) was already registered in the name of one Mrs. Keerthi .S.Das. From Ext.A8 it can be seen that the complainant’s vehicle which was already registered in the name of one Keerthi.S.Das. This will show that there was clear deficiency in service, unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties. The complainants sustained damages, mental shock, pain and loss due to the negligent act of the opposite parties. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. The complainants are under the impression that the vehicle was a brand new and the same was registered in their name. The complainant got A8 document and they are upset to know about the vehicle was registered in the name of one Keerthi.S.Das. This is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Moreover the opposite parties are liable to pay exchange bonus to the complainants. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows.
We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.75,000/- to the
complainants as compensation for deficiency of services and pay Rs.15,560/- as exchange bonus and pay Rs.2,500/- as costs of these proceedings.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Order not complied within one month, the amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of Order till payment.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th 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 complainants
Ext.A1-Copy of commitment for dtd 16-10-12 issued by Kulathunkal Motors
Ext.A2-Copy of sale agreement dtd 20-10-12
Ext.A3-Advertisement slip of Kulathunkal Motors
Ext.A4-Copy of tax invoice for an amount of Rs.5,22,786 dtd 22/11/12
issued by Kulathunkal Motors
Ext.A5-Copy of tax invoice for an amount of Rs.5,60,285/- dtd 22/11/12
issued by Kulathunkal Motors
Ext.A6-copy of Certificate of Registration
Ext.A7-Copy of tax invoice dtd 22-12-11 issued by Focus Motors Kottayam.
Ext.A8-Copy of printout from the customer care site of Tata Motors
Ext.A9-Copy of complaint
Ext.A10-Copy of letter from petitioner
Documents of Opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
