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. 311/12
Monday the 2nd day of March, 2015
Petitioner : Thressia N @ Bincy Thomas
W/o Thomas, Tharayil House,
Kongadoor PO, Ayarkunnam,
Kottayam.
(Ad.K.A. Prasad)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1) TATA Motors,
Bombay House-24,
Homey Mody Street,
Fort Mumbai400001
Rpted by its Managing Director
(Adv.V.Krishna Menon, M.K.Jose &
P.J. Anilkumar)
2) St.Antony’s Motors India Ltd.,
111/178, Thannickal Padi,
Vadavathoor PO, KK.Road,
Kottayam-1 Reptd by its
Managing Director.
(Adv. George Emmanuel Podipara)
3) Sales Manager,
St.Antony’s Motors India Ltd.,
111/178, Thannickal Padi
Vadavathoor PO
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 18-10-2012 is as follows:
The complainant’s vehicle Indica DLS bearing Reg.No. KL-05-1515 manufactured by 1st opposite party was purchased from the 2nd opposite party. 3rd opposite party is the sales manager of the 2nd opposite party. According to the complainant, the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties offered Rs. 1,85,000/- to her old car and they assured that they will prove new Indica DLS car for Rs. 5,47,500/- in addition to the insurance charge and road tax. And they also made representation that complainant will get Rs.45,000/- as exchange offer and Rs.12,500/- as concession from the 1st opposite party. According to the complainant on believing the said representation of 2nd and 3rd opposite party he booked an Indica Vista LS car by giving Rs.5000/- to the 2nd opposite party. But 2nd opposite party issued a receipt for the said amount only on 24-5-12 and they assured that the car will be delivered on 6/6/12. According to the complainant she was approached 2nd opposite party for taking delivery of the car on 6/6/12 but the 2nd opposite party is not ready to deliver the car, as per their assurance, eventhough the car was available with the 2nd opposite party. And on 12/6/12 2nd opposite party was delivered the car to the complainant. According to the complainant at the time of booking 2nd and 3rd opposite party assured that they will remit the road tax for two year and will do the registration formalities for an amount of Rs.9000/-. And they also offered that they will provide Teflon coating to the car so as to protect the metal parts of the car from rust. According to the complainant at the time of delivery of the car the left hand side mirror was not available and 3rd opposite party agreed to give it within a period of one week. On 4/7/12, at the time of 1st service, the complainant demanded the left side mirror but 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were not willing to provide the same. And on verification it was found that 2nd and 3rd opposite parties did not give the exchange offer of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant and on checking it was realized that the car was not painted with Teflon coating. It is further realized that even though, counter petitioners have collected 9000/- for paying road tax for two years, they have only paid road tax for ten months. According to the complainant she demanded Rs.45,000/-, left side mirror, payment of road tax for the next 14 months and provide the car with Teflon coating as per the assurance. But opposite parties were not willing to do the demands of the complainant. According to the complainant the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
The first opposite party filed version contenting that the complainant has no case that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party and they were unnecessarily been made a party to the proceedings. According to the 1st opposite party the relationship between this opposite party and second opposite party is of principal to principal. And 1st opposite party in no way is liable or responsible for the alleged transactions between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party. According to the 1st opposite party there is no deficiency in service on the part of them and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
The second opposite party filed version admitting the sale of complainant’s vehicle. According to the 2nd opposite party the complainant was approached for purchasing a brand new Indica Vista car by selling her used car for availing exchange bonus of Rs.45,000/- which is being offered by the 1st opposite party as a special offer. And there was a condition that the selling and purchasing vehicle should stand registered in same name and the complainant accepted the said condition. On 21-5-12, the complainant booked the said car by remitting Re.5000/- as advance. According to the 2nd opposite party as a special offer to the complainant, 2nd opposite party also offered Rs.12,500/- discount on the show room price of the brand new car along with exchange bonus and also informed the complainant that 2nd opposite party will charge Rs.9,000/- towards vehicle transport and delivery charge which includes temporary registration charge, handling charge and PD 1 charge of the new vehicle. And all the said offers and conditions were accepted by the complainant and she also assured that she will personally arrange road tax, insurance and other related expenses. According to the 2nd opposite party they had no direct connection with the selling of her old car, 2nd opposite party acted as an intermediary to the sell the old car. And complainant has sold her vehicle for Rs.1,00,000/- and the said amount is received by the 2nd opposite party on 11/6/12. The alleged vehicle’s show room price is Rs.5,16,930/- and in additional to this the 2nd opposite party usually charged Rs.9000/- as vehicle transport and delivery charges. If the purchaser of new car wants to arrange insurance and road tax by the 2nd opposite party that amount also had to be collects. The loan amount of the car is debited on 7/6/12 and the sale price of the exchanged car was on 11/6/12, and the vehicle was delivered on 12/6/12. According to the 2nd opposite party they had offered only temporary registration, PDI charges and transport and delivery charges for an amount of Rs.9000/-. And 2nd opposite party never offered teflon coating on free of cost. At the time of delivery and 1st service, the left hand mirror was not available with them and before, on 8-8-12 it was arranged and fitted on the car. According to the 2nd opposite party for getting exchange bonus the registered owner’s name of new vehicle and old vehicle should be one and the same. The complainant wanted to purchase the car in the name of Thressia but the name entered in the RC book of the old car was Bincy Thomas. So for getting the exchange bonus the complainant will submit one and same certificate but complainant failed to produce the same till now. According to the 2nd opposite party there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of them and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Points for considerations are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavits of the complainant and 1st opposite party and Ext.A1 to A6 documents from the side of complainant.
Point No.1
According to the complainant 2nd and 3rd opposite party has not acted in accordance with their promise at the time of exchange of Indica DLS car with new Indica Vista LS car. Opposite party has not provided the following offers.
- Opposite party has not given the exchange bonus of Rs.45,000/-
- Opposite party has not given left hand side mirror of Indica Vista LS
- Opposite party has not provided Teflon coating to the metal part of the car
- The 2nd and 3rd opposite party has not paid the road tax for 2 years
According to the 1st opposite party they had not given any offer. 1st opposite party has unnecessarily been made a party to the proceedings. The relationship between the 1st and 2nd opposite parties is a principal to principal relationship. According to the 2nd opposite party they never assured the so many offers as alleged by the complainant. According to the 2nd opposite party, the exchange bonus of Rs.45,000/- is a special offer from the 1st opposite party. For getting the bonus the registered owners name of new vehicle and exchanged vehicle should be one and same. But in this case the registered owner of the new car is one Thressia, but the name entered in the old vehicle’s RC Book was Bincy Thomas. Even though the complainant told that, both names are of herself and she will give certificate from appropriate authority to prove the same. But nothing has placed by the complainant to prove the same. In our view, since the offer is exchange bonus the complainant is duty bound to prove that the registered owner of the both, vehicles are one and same. Even after taking a contention by the 2nd opposite party in their version nothing has produced by the complainant before the Fora to prove that Bincy Thomas and Thressia are one and the same person. Otherwise the complainant failed to prove by records that, she is entitled to get exchange bonus of Rs. 45,000/-.
The other promises given by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties is to give the complainant, left hand side mirror, providing Teflon coating on the metal parts etc. But nothing has been produced by the complainant to prove that 2nd and 3rd opposite parties had made such a promise. Ext.A1 is the preliminary information sheet. The complainant has a specific case that in Ext.A1 the LH mirror, Teflon coating were mentioned. But in our view, such mentioning will not be a conclusive proof to show that such accessories were promised by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties.
The other allegation of the complainant is that, the 2nd opposite party offered to pay road tax of the new vehicle for 2 years. But nothing has been produced by the complainant to prove the said allegation. In our view the lack of evidence we do not find any deficiency in service. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in Point No.1 complaint is dismissed. No cost is ordered.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 2nd day of March, 2015.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents for the petitioner
Ext.A1-Copy of Preliminary Information sheet
Ext.A2-Copy of Preliminary Information sheet
Ext.A3-Owner’s Manual & Service history
Ext.A4-Copy of Vehicle Data Sheet
Ext.A5- Copy of letter dtd 19/7/12 issued by 2nd OP
Ext.A6-Power of Attorney
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order
