BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 18/07/2009

Date of Order : 29/10/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 374/2009

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :

By believing the assurances of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant booked a Fiat Palio car and deposited Rs. 5,000/- in the 1^st opposite party's account at ICICI Bank on 19-12-2008. The complainant who had arrived from Qatar on 09-12-2008 for one month's leave was in emergent need of a car for various purposes. The 1^st opposite party assured to deliver a car immediately. The 1^st opposite party offered to arrange loan from HDFC bank with interest @ 12.5% . Though the loan was sanctioned on 24-12-2008, the bank charged interest @ 14.5%. The complainant had to come to Ernakulam all the way from Thiruvananthapuram on 24-12-2008, 27-12-2008 and on 03-01-2009, but the 1^st opposite party delivered the car only on 05-01-2009. Thereafter on 09-01-2009, when the complainant approached the registering authority to register the car in Thiruvananthapuram, they did not register the same since, there was mistake of address in the temporary certificate of registration. In the mean time, the complainant returned to Qatar on 10-01-2009. The 1^st opposite party corrected the temporary certificate of registration only on 28-01-2009. The complainant sustained financial loss, mental agony and discomfort due to the delay in delivery of the car as well as the delay in registration. The complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

2. Version of the 1^st opposite party :

The complainant had booked for a Fiat Palio car. While booking the car, the complainant had been informed that the car would be delivered in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the order booking form. At no point of time, had the 1^st opposite party ever stated to the complainant that the car would be delivered immediately on booking of the same. The 1^st opposite party intimated the complainant that it would take approximately 30 days for delivery of the vehicle. However, the 1^st opposite party had not offered to arrange finance for the vehicle with interest @ 12.5% p.a. On the basis of the booking, the 1^st opposite party delivered the car on 05-01-2009 within 30 days of booking of the vehicle. The complainant had provided a different address to the bank than that provided to the 1^st opposite party which in turn had caused the delay in having the vehicle registered. The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for.

3. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties field separate version raising the very same contentions of the 1^st opposite party.

4. The power of attorney holder and the witness for the complainant were examined as PW's 1 and 2 respectively, Exts. A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the complainant. The witness for the 3^rd opposite party was examined as DW1. For no reasons forthcoming neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 2^nd opposite party. The witness for the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW2 and Ext. B1 was marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.

`5. The points that arose for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for get a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh from the opposite parties?

2. Costs of the proceedings?

6. Point No. i. :- The crux of the case of the complainant is that though the 1^st opposite party agreed to deliver the car immediately from the date of booking, they failed to do so. Further, since there was correction in the temporary registration certificate, the complainant could not register the car in time.

7. Ext. B1 is the booking form of the car purportedly signed by the complainant. PW1 the wife of the complainant refuted the signature of the complainant in Ext. B1. But since the complainant could not mount the box and so the 1^st opposite party could not confirm Ext. B1 with the complainant. Legally, PW1 the power of attorney holder is not competent to ratify the veracity and genuineness of Ext. B1. The 1^st opposite party vehemently relies on Ext. B1 and contents that it has never offered the complainant to deliver the car immediately, on the contrary they maintain that they have offered to deliver the car within 30 days and they fulfilled the same by delivering the car on 05-01-2009. Moreover, PW's 1 and 2 categorically stated that there is no documentary evidence to show that the 1^st opposite party had offered to deliver the car immediately after the booking.

8. During evidence, PW1 deposed that the complainant had entrusted 2 addresses with the 1^st opposite party and one was for communication purpose only. But nothing is on record to substantiate the above contentions of the complainant.

9. In view of the above, we are only to hold that the complainant fails to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties or bonafides on their point. For reasons stated above, upholding the contentions of the opposite parties, we are constrained to dismiss the complaint. Ordered accordingly.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of October 2011.

Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========