DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Friday the 28^th day of June 2024

CC.415/2019

Complainant

Shemmin.S. Bharathan,

S/o. K. Bharathan,

28/550, Manikya Nilayam (HO),

Kavu Nagar, Chevayur. P.O,

Calicut - 673017

Opposite Parties

1.              The Manager,

Blue Mountain Autos,

K.P. 18/507 Q, NH 212,

Wayanad Road, Karanthur. P.O,

Kunnamangalam, Calicut - 673571

2.               The Manager,

Royal Enfield, 28/185 A, Opposite IOC Pump,

Koonamathi, Edappalli. P.O,

Kochi – 682024

3.               The Manager,

Royal Enfield Manufacturing Company,

SH 48, Oragadam Industrial Corridor,

Oragaram, Chennai – 631604

Tamil Nadu.

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT

            This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant is a Company Executive. The first opposite party is the authorised dealer of Royal Enfield Motorcyles. The second opposite party is the authorised dealer/agent for Kerala/Lakshadweep region. The third opposite party is the manufacturer of Royal Enfield motorcyles in India.

3. In the last week of November 2019, the complainant approached the first opposite party as he was in need of a motorcycle in order to carry out his job more efficiently. He was told that the motorcycles manufactured by third opposite party are of very good quality for which the first opposite party offered quality and prompt service. The complainant was also told by the sales representative that the motorcycle model Royal Enfield Classic 350- Gunmetal Grey 2019 are available at short notice and that maximum delay for delivery after booking would be only two weeks. He was also given a quotation / proforma on 29/11/2019 showing the total cost of the vehicle as Rs.1,93,135/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as advance for which receipt dated 30/11/2019 was issued. The tentative date of delivery was shown as 15 days in the order booking form.        
4. After a few days, on enquiry, he was told that the vehicle would be delivered within the prescribed time if he deposited the balance amount of Rs. 1,83,135/-. Accordingly, he paid the balance amount on 06/12/2019. On 16/12/2019 when the complainant went to the office of the first opposite party and enquired about the delivery of the vehicle, he was told that the vehicle was not readily available. On 18/12/2019 an executive from the first opposite party informed the complainant over phone that the vehicle would be billed only after 20/12/2019 and that the delivery would be further delayed.
5. Then the complainant contacted the Royal Enfield Customer Support who assured to look into the matter and call back at once. As they did not call back, the complainant contacted the area sales manager at the office of the second opposite party who promised to look in to the matter and call back. After a few minutes, the sales representative told the complainant that the vehicle would be delivered in time.
6. When the complainant contacted the area sales manager again he was told that no time frame could be fixed for the delivery of the vehicle and his behaviour was not good. On 23/12/2019 the complainant sent and e-mail to the Royal Enfield Support about the inappropriate behaviour of the area sales manager, but no follow up action had been taken. There was gross negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade and business practice on the part of the opposite parties in not delivering the vehicle in time after receiving the full payment. The complainant was put to gross mental agony and difficulties due to the irresponsible attitude and conduct of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and refund of  Rs. 1,93,135/- with interest and also the cost of the litigation.
7. The first and second opposite parties were set ex-parte.
8. The third opposite party has filed written version wherein all the allegations and claims made in the complaint are denied. According to the third opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that the complainant had booked the motorcycle in question with the first opposite party and paid an advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 30/11/2019. As per the booking order form, the tentative delivery date was noted as 15 days from the date of booking. However the date of delivery could not be assured since it was year ending and there was a change in BS IV to BS VI version and this was properly communicated to the complainant also. The averment that the opposite party had assured that if the payment was made in full, the vehicle would be delivered within the prescribed time is false and hence denied. The deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 1,83,135/- was made by the complainant voluntarily. On deposit of the amount, the complainant was again informed that it would take some more time to get delivery of the vehicle.
9. The allegation that the area sales manager communicated with the complainant rudely is denied. The opposite parties had taken all the efforts to deliver the vehicle at the earliest possible date and was ready for delivery on 23/12/2019 and informed the complainant to take delivery of the same. But he refused to take delivery stating false allegations against the opposite parties. There was no breach of promise, negligence, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The payment which the complainant had made through bank as vehicle loan was closed by the opposite parties on 27/01/2020 by redirecting the same with bank interest which comes to a total figure of Rs.1,94,383/-. The advance amount paid by the complainant is now with the first opposite party. Though the first opposite party had requested the complainant to collect the same, he has not tuned up. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as compensation. The complaint has been filed as an experimental one for the purpose of harassing the opposite parties. With above contentions, the third opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.          
10. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

1. Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?

2) Reliefs and costs.

11. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. The third opposite party chose to remain absent at the time of evidence.
12. Heard.
13. Point No 1:   The complainant has approached this Commission alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The specific allegation is that the vehicle ordered was not delivered to him in time by the opposite parties even though he had complied with all the formalities and made full payment.
14. In order to substantiate this case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the quotation/proforma  dated 29/11/2019 issued by the first opposite party, Ext A2 is the copy of the bank receipt voucher dated 30/11/2019 for Rs. 10,000/- , Ext A3 is the copy of the order booking form dated 30/11/2019, Ext A4 is the account statement, Ext A5 is the e-mail dated 23/12/2019 and Ext A6 is the certificate dated 08/04/2024 issued by IDBI bank.
15. It is averred in the proof affidavit of PW1 that there was gross neglect on the part of the opposite parties in delivering the vehicle in time even though he had complied with all the formalities and made full payment as demanded by the opposite parties. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The first and second opposite parties remained ex-parte. Though the third opposite party has filed written version denying the allegations, they chose to remain absent at the time of evidence. The evidence of PW1 remains uncontroverted. PW1 was not even cross examined. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked by the complainant. There was no cross examination or contra evidence to disprove the claim of the complainant. The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A5 documents.
16. Not delivering the vehicle in time as promised despite receiving the entire payment and the further neglect to address the concerns of the complainant in the matter amounts to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency of service. It is not disputed that the complainant had made payment of a total sum of Rs.1,93,135/- towards the price of the vehicle. It has come out in evidence that the payment which the complainant had made through bank as vehicle loan was closed by the opposite party on 27/01/2020 by redirecting the same with bank interest which comes to Rs. 1,94,383/-. This is further evidence by Ext A6 certificate issued by the bank. But the advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- was not returned and this is admitted in the written version. Hence the opposite parties are bound to refund Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to gross mental agony and inconvenience due to the negligence, latches and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and on account of the unfair trade practice indulged. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately.  Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.
17. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

a)  CC.415/2019 is allowed in part.

b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant, being the advance amount received from him as per Ext A2, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint ie, 27/12/2019 till actual payment.

c) The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered.

d) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.

e) The opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to make the payment as afore stated.

f) The order shall be complied with in 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 28^th day of June, 2024.

Date of Filing: 27/12/2019

                        Sd/-                                                                                                 Sd/-

                 PRESIDENT                                                                                    MEMBER                                      

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Copy of the quotation/proforma  dated 29/11/2019 issued by the first        

                 opposite party.

Ext.A2 – Copy of the bank receipt voucher dated 30/11/2019 for Rs. 10,000/-.

Ext.A3 – Copy of the order booking form dated 30/11/2019.

Ext.A4 – Account statement. 

Ext.A5 – E-mail dated 23/12/2019.

Ext.A6 – Certificate dated 08/04/2024 issued by IDBI bank.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  Shemmin.S. Bharathan (Complainant)

                        Sd/-                                                                                               Sd/-

                 PRESIDENT                                                                                   MEMBER                                      

                                 True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                                                    Assistant Registrar.