CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 19th day of May 2014
CC/ 208/2013
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 13/12/2013
: SMT. SHINY.P.R ,MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA K.P, MEMBER
Savin K.S,
S/o. Sathyan,
Sreevalsam, Kacherimedu,
Chittur Post,
Palakkad - 678 101 : Complainant
(By Adv. B. Kamal Chand)
Vs
1. The Branch Manager,
Indus Motor Company Private Ltd.,
Coimbatore Road, Kootupatha,
Chandranagar Post,
Palakkad – 678 007
2. The Managing Director,
Indus Motor Company Private Ltd.,
Corporate Office, Opposite Cochin Shipyard
M.G. Road, Thevara,
Cochin, Kerala. Pin – 682 015 : Opposite parties
(By Avd. P.K . Aboobacker & Avd. C.K. Bhaskaran)
O R D E R
By Smt. Shiny . P. R. Member.
Brief facts of the complaint:- Complainant submitted as follows:- The complainant is a teacher by profession. The complainant met Mr. Vipin T, who is the sales person of the Opposite parties to purchase a car. After discussions and test driving of the vehicle, the complainant decided to purchase Swift VDI, White colour. As per the proforma invoice, which was given by the Sales person the complainant was subjected to pay Rs. 7,14,550/-(Rupees Seven Lakh Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Only). On 7-9-2013 Mr.
Sreekrishnan who is the Sales Team Leader of the 1st opposite party told the complainant that the opposite party will give a consumer offer of Rs. 15,000/-, which is already sanctioned by the Maruthi Suzuki and another offer for Rs. 15,000/- which is given by opposite party that will be given, provided, any of the members in the family of the complainant owns a Maruthi car and they have to produce the copy of the R.C. book also. It that be so the complainant will be bound to pay only Rs 6, 84,550/-. But Mr. Sreekrishnan told the complainant that the 2nd offer of Rs. 15,000/-which is given by the opposite parties will not form part and parcel of any of the documents, and the complainant have to pay the said amount initially, even then Mr. Sreekrishnan persuaded and convinced the complainant that the said amount will be reimbursed by the 1st opposite party if the copy of the R.C. book of the another car is produced before the opposite parties and thus the complainant will get a cash discount of Rs. 30,000/-. And thus believing the words of the Mr. Sreekrishnan the complainant decided to purchase the car as per the proforma invoice dated 6-9-2013 for an amount of Rs 6,99,550/- after deducting the consumer offer for Rs.15,000/-. And thus the complainant paid Rs.3,000/- as booking amount on 7-9-2013. The complainant has already arranged and discussed with the State Bank of India, Chittur branch for necessary loan. 1st opposite party issued a proforma invoice and that was submitted before the bank. The bank sanctioned the loan and offered the complainant that the loan amount will be disbursed whenever the vehicle is ready to be delivered. The same immediately informed to Mr. Sreekrishnan. As per the direction of the Mr. SreeKrishnan , complainant went to the yard and Mr. SreeKrishnan showed the complainant the Swift VDIi, White in colour and asked the complainant to make the payment at the earliest. Then the complainant approached the bank and the bank contacted the Opposite parties and Opposite party gave the information that the vehicle is ready for delivery. After getting the confirmation bank on 25-9-2013 issued a letter to the opposite party stating that the amount mentioned in the proforma invoice after deducting the booking amount of Rs, 3,000/- an amount of Rs. 6,96,550/- has been credited to the account of the opposite parties. The first opposite party issued a receipt for an amount of Rs. 6,96,550/- dated 25-9-2013 to the complainant. At that time Mr. Sreekrishnan and Mr. Vinukumar specifically admitted and told that the vehicle will be delivered on the next day as per specifications and directions given by the complainant. Only after 22 days i.e. on 18-10-2013 sale certificate was issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. While taking the delivery of the vehicle Mr. Sreekrishnan and Vinukumar told that they are unable to give the 2nd offer of Rs. 15,000/-. After some days a cheque drawn on Federal Bank, Palakkad dated 24-10-2013 for Rs. 3,700/- was issued to the complainant without mentioning of on what head the above said amount has been given. Moreover the complainant was forced to wait for the vehicle for 22 days that too after the payment of full cash. Since the vehicle was taken on loan the complainant is bound to pay EMI on the date which is stipulated for the same. Thus the complainant was in a position to pay the monthly installments even without owning a vehicle, because of the acts and activities of Mr. Sreekrishnan and Mr. Vinukumar who are the employees of the opposite parties. For their activities the opposite parties are vicariously liable also. The conduct and activities of the opposite parties are amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite parties for appearance. They entered appearance. No version filed by opposite parties and no representation thereafter.
The evidence adduced by the complainant consists of his chief affidavit and Ext. A1 to Ext. A9
The following issues are to be considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
We have perused the documents on records. As per the Ext A1 the complainant has paid Rs. 6, 99,550/- after deducting the consumer offer of Rs. 15,000/-. At the time of booking the vehicle Mr. Sreekrishnan who is the Sales Team Leader of the 1st opposite party told the complainant that the opposite party will give a consumer offer of Rs. 15,000/-, which is already sanctioned by the Maruthi Suzuki and another offer for Rs. 15,000/- which is given by the opposite party will be given, provided, any of the members in the family of the complainant owns a car and they have to produce the copy of the R.C. Book also. Complainant submitted that R.C.Book of his father was handed over to the opposite parties.
So he is entitled to get the 2nd offer which is given by the opposite parties. Moreover Opposite parties drawn a cheque of Rs. 3,700/- of Federal Bank, Palakkad dated 24-10-2013 in favour of the complainant. Complainant submitted that believing the words of Mr. Sreekrishnan and Vinukumar with regard to the offer he had decided to take the vehicle. Opposite parties are vicariously liable for the acts of their employees. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the consumer offer of Rs. 15,000/- from the opposite parties. By issuing the cheque of Rs. 3,700/- to the complainant, the opposite parties admit the 2nd consumer offer. But the complainant is not entitled to get the compensation for the delay of 22 days for delivery. Because in Ext A1 it is mentioned that delivery as per priority subject to availability of stock. Complainant has prior knowledge about the delivery of vehicle depends upon the availability of stock. Hence we cannot attribute the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for 22 days delay of delivery of the vehicle. As the opposite parties are not filed their version or not produced any evidence to the contrary, the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged.
In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence we allow the complaint partly. Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 11,300/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand and Three Hundred only) as compensation along with cost of Rs. 1000/-(Rupees Thousand only) to the Complainant within one month.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of May 2014.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma K.P Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Attested copy of RC Book KL-09-G-666 MARUTI 800 STD CAR.
Ext.A2 - copy of Performa Invoice dated 06/09/2013.
Ext.A3 - copy of Receipt No.SR/1522/13-14 dated 07/09/2013.
Ext.A4 - copy of letter issued by State Bank of India Chittoor to complainant dated
25/09/2013.
Ext.A5 - copy of Receipt Neft/458/13-14 dated 25/09/2013.
Ext.A6 - copy of Sale Certificate dated 18/10/2013.
Ext.A7 - copy of Temporary Certificate of Registration dated 18/10/2013.
Ext.A8 - copy of Insurance Policy dated 18/10/2013.
Ext.A9 - copy of Cheque drawn on Fedaral Bank Palakkad branch dated 24/10/2013 for
Rs. 3,700/-
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceeding.
