IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C.No.136/2010 (Filed on 06.10.2010)
Between:
K.S. Roy,
Madapallil House,
Kumbazha. P.O.,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Jagan Mathew) ….. Complainant
And:
1. The Chairman,
Tata Motors Ltd.,
Bombay House,
24 Homi Mody Street,
Mumbai.
2. Head Car Product Group,
Passenger Car Business Unit,
5th Floor, One Forbes,
Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg,
Mumbai – 400 023.
(By Advocates M/s. Menon & Menon)
3. The Manager,
St. Antony’s Motors Ltd.,
K.K. Road, Vadavathoor.P.O.,
Kottayam.
4. The Manager,
St. Antony”s Motors Ltd.,
Vilavinal Raj Towers,
Santhosh Junction,
Pathanamthitta. ….. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the manufactures of Nano Car and 3rd and 4th opposite parties are the dealers of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant booked an Ivory White coloured Nano Car by paying ` 95,000 as booking advance on 25.4.2009. As per the terms and conditions of the booking order Tata Motor will pay an interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum in case the delivery of the booked vehicle delayed for more than one year but less than 2 years. Booking advance was given to the 3rd opposite party through Central Bank of India. While so on 15.7.2010, the complainant received a letter from one authorized officer of opposite parties 1 and 2 informing the complainant that the car is ready for delivery and in case complainant could not complete all the formalities within 7.8.2010 Tata Motors reserves the right to revoke the booking and the booking amount will be returned. But so far the car was not delivered to the complainant or received the booking amount with 8.5% interest as per the terms and conditions in the booking order. Meanwhile, the complainant also noticed that an amount of ` 15,048 has been deducted on 1.10.2010 from his saving bank account No.1650425630 of Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta branch against Nano interest. The said deduction is made without prior information and without delivering the car. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony and the opposite parties are liable for the same to the complainant. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite party for making delivery of the car at the earliest along with ` 15,048 deducted from his account as interest and compensation of ` 20,000 with its interest at the rate of 18% per annum and other costs of ` 5,200.
3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their version with the following main contentions:- This opposite parties admitted the booking of the car by the complainant through Central Bank of India. After the booking of the car, this opposite parties sent a letter dated 15.7.2010 to the complainant intimating that the complainant had been selected as an allottee for the Tata Nano Car and he was requested to complete all necessary formalities on or before 7.8.2010. In that letter it was also informed that in the event of not completing the formalities before 7.8.2010 opposite parties are entitled to revoke the booking and the booking amount will be refunded. As necessary formalities are not completed by the complainant within the stipulated time the allotment made in favour of the complainant was cancelled and the booking amount of ` 95,000 was returned. Since the allotment was cancelled the opposite parties are unable to allot a car as sought by the complainant. Interest for the booking amount will be given only to the unsuccessful allottees who opted for retaining their booking and the complainant is not an unsuccessful allottee and hence he is not entitled to get the interest. The allegation regarding the deduction of ` 15,048 from the account of the complainant by the opposite parties is false and they have not deducted any amount. With the above contentions, they submitted that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties and they have not caused pain or suffering to the complainant and hence they are no way liable to compensate the complainant. Therefore, they prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. However, they also stated in their version that as a gesture of goodwill they are ready and willing to provide a Tata Nano Car to the complainant at the price prevalent on 15.7.2010 provided the complainant makes the payment.
5. Opposite parties 3 and 4 were exparte.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of the complainant as PW1 based on the proof affidavit and the oral deposition of PW2 and Exts.A1 to A11. Opposite parties 1 and 2 has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. But they have cross-examined PW1 and PW2. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
8. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that he had booked a Nano Car and paid ` 95,000 on 25.4.2009 as booking advance to the opposite parties through Central Bank of India and later he paid the balance amount of ` 47,737 on 4.10.2010. As per the terms and conditions of the booking, opposite parties are liable to pay 8.5% interest for the booking amount if delivery is delayed more than one year and less than two years. Even though he had paid the entire amount opposite parties does not delivered the car or paid the promised interest or the booking amount so far. Further, an amount of ` 15,048 was withdrawn by the opposite parties on 1.10.2010 from his S.B. Account as interest without intimating the complainant and without his permission. All the above said acts of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit along with 9 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A9. One witness, the Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta was also examined as PW2 and 2 documents were marked through PW2 as Exts.A10 and A11. Ext.A1 is the receipt dated 24.4.2009 for Rs.2,990 for the remittance of booking charges issued from Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant. Ext.A1(a) is the advertisement of the opposite parties published in Malayala Manorama daily dated 16.4.2009. Ext.A2 is the carbon copy of the application for Tata Nano booking dated 25.4.2009 from Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3 is the carbon copy of the proforma invoice for ` 1,42,737 dated 23.7.2009 issued by the 4th opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A4 is the letter dated 15.7.2010 issued from Tata Motors in the name of the complainant informing about the allotment. Ext.A5 is the copy of letter dated 4.10.2010 issued from Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta in the name of 4th opposite party. Ext.A6 is the brochure of Nano car. Ext.A7 is the receipt dated 4.10.2010 for ` 47,737 issued by 4th opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A8 is the pass book of the savings bank A/c.No.1650425630 of the complainant with Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta. Ext.A9 is the copy of statement of account from 4.10.2010 to 28.2.2011 in A/c.No.3086116797 of Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant. Ext.A10 is the copy of the statement of account from 1.10.2010 to 30.6.2011 in A/c. No. 3086116797 of Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant. Ext.A11 is the copy of statement of account from 31.1.2008 to 31.5.2011 in A/c.No.1650425630 of Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.
10. On the other hand, the contentions of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties is that on the basis of the booking of the complainant they have made the allotment of the car to the complainant vide their letter dated 15.7.2010 and in that letter, complainant was also intimated that the complainant has to complete all the formalities before 7.08.2010. It is also intimated in that letter if the formalities are not completed before 7.08.2010 the allotment will be cancelled and the booking amount will also be returned. But the complainant failed to comply the direction of opposite parties which resulted in the cancellation of the allotment and thereafter the booking amount was refunded to the complainant. Opposite parties also contended that they have not collected or received an amount of ` 15,048 as alleged by the complainant. With regard to the claim of interest, opposite parties’ contention is that the interest will be given to those applicants who are not got the allotment and who retains the booking till the delivery of the vehicle after one year from the date of allotment. So they argued that the complainant is not entitled to get interest as he is not a retainee. Thus they argued that they have not committed any deficiency of service and the complainant is not entitled to get any of the relief sought for in the complaint. However, at the time of argument also this opposite parties made an offer for delivering a Nano Car to the complainant at the price prevailing on 15.7.2010.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant had made a booking for a Nano Car and he had paid the booking amount of ` 95,000 on 25.4.2009. It is evident from Exts.A1,A2 and A5. As per Ext.A4, it is seen that the opposite parties had given the allotment letter of the car to the complainant on 15.7.2010 with a direction to comply the formalities before 07.08.2010. But the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he had complied the directions of the opposite parties within the stipulated time. As per Ext.A7, the complainant had remitted the balance amount of ` 47,737 only on 4.10.2010. Since the complainant has failed to comply the direction of the opposite party we could not find any deficiency in service of the opposite parties for the non-delivery of the car.
12. However, the materials on record shows that the complainant’s booking was cancelled by the opposite parties during August 2010. But the booking amount of Rs. 95,000 was returned only on 18.02.2011. The delay caused in the return of the booking amount is a deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties.
13. Though the allotment was cancelled by the opposite parties due to the fault of the complainant, the complainant is at liberty to accept the offer of the opposite parties for the delivery of the car at the prevailing price as on 15.07.2010. In the circumstances, this complaint can be allowed with modification as follows:
(i) Opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 8/2010 to 2/2011 for the booking amount of Rs. 95,000 to the complainant for the delay caused in the refund of the booking amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the said amount with 12% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
(ii) Opposite parties are further directed to comply their offer for the delivery of a Nano Car to the complainant at the price prevailed on 15.07.2010, if the complainant desires so, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
(iii) In the nature and circumstance of this case, no orders for cost and compensation.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 8th day of December, 2011.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:-
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : K.S. Roy
PW2 : G. Sreenivasa Reddy
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Receipt dated 24.4.2009 for ` 2,990 issued from Central Bank of India,
Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.
A1(a) : Advertisement of the opposite parties published in Malayala Manorama daily
dated 16.4.2009.
A2 : Carbon copy of the application for Tata Nano booking dated 25.4.2009 from
Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.
A3 : Carbon copy of the proforma invoice for ` 1,42,737 dated 23.7.2009
issued by 4th opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A4 : Letter dated 15.7.2010 issued from Tata Motors in the name of the complainant.
A5 : Copy of letter dated 4.10.2010 issued from Central Bank of India,
Pathanamthitta in the name of 4th opposite party.
A6 : Brochure of Nano car.
A7 : Receipt dated 4.10.2010 for ` 47,737 issued by 4th opposite party in the name of
the complainant.
A8 : Savings bank A/c.No.1650425630 of the complainant with Central Bank of
India, Pathanamthitta.
A9 : Copy of statement of account from 4.10.2010 to 28.2.2011 in A/c.No.3086116797
of Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.
A10 : Copy of the statement of account from 1.10.2010 to 30.6.2011 in A/c. No.
3086116797 of Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta in the name of the
complainant.
A11 : Copy of statement of account from 31.1.2008 to 31.5.2011 in A/c.No.1650425630
of Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to: (1) K.S. Roy, Madapallil House, Kumbazha. P.O., Pathanamthitta.
(2) The Chairman, Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street,
Mumbai.
(3) Head Car Product Group, Passenger Car Business Unit,5th Floor, One
Forbes, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Mumbai – 400 023.
(4) The Manager, St. Antony’s Motors Ltd., K.K. Road, Vadavathoor.P.O.,
Kottayam.
(5) The Manager, St. Antony’s Motors Ltd., Vilavinal Raj Towers,
Santhosh Junction, Pathanamthitta.
(6) The stock file.
