Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/87/2018

S.Saravanakumar, Son of D.Shanmugam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager J.S.P.Automotive - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs.K.Thirupurasundari

26 May 2022

ORDER

    Complaint presented on :02.08.2018           Date of disposal            :20.06.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                              THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,   :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.87/2018

 

DATED MONDAY THE 20^th  DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

S. Saravana Kumar

Son of D. Shanmugam,

No.186, 2^nd Street, Indira Gandhi Nagar,

Tondiarpet,

Chennai-600081.                                                                     …..Complainant

 

 

 ..Vs..

 

The Manager,

J.S.P. Automotive,

Old No.87, New No.225, Block No.9,

Madhavaram High Road,

North Perambur,

Chennai-600 011                                                                    …..Opposite Party

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                          : Mrs. Thirupurasundari

 

Counsel for  opposite party                        : M/s. V.P. Raju & G.A.Dominic Savio

      Joseph

 

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,   :MEMBER-II:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and damages caused for deficiency of services and also Rs.200/- deducted from the advance amount paid  and costs for this petition.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant stated that he was aspiring to purchase UNICORN 150 motorbike from the opposite party by paying full amount and approached the opposite party on 26.02.2018 and they informed that complainant has to pay Rs.1,000/- towards advance and the vehicle will be delivered after a period of 40 days and at that time the complainant has to pay Rs.83,000/- towards the value of said vehicle.  When the complainant asked the delivery of vehicle on the same day, the opposite party informed that it is not possible to deliver the same and further told that the vehicle will be delivered after 40 days from the date of booking  Believing this the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- as advance, the booking no. 2092 was given by opposite party and a receipt no. 37975 dated 26.02.2018 was also issued.  After 40 days the complainant approached the opposite party to deliver the vehicle after receiving the value of the vehicle, but the opposite party was evading to deliver the vehicle.  The Complainant stated that the opposite party is in the habit of delivering the vehicles to the persons who had not booked in advance by receiving the lump sum amount more than the value of the vehicle.  The complainant approached the opposite party on 17.05.2018 to take delivery of the vehicle and opposite party informed that the vehicle is out of stock and will be delivered whenever it is arrived at showroom.  Then complainant insisted for refund of advance and the opposite party said that cash will not be given and only cheque will be given that too after submission of original bill.  After much follow up the opposite party had issued a cheque on 28.05.2018 bearing No.007545 drawn on HDFC Bank for a sum of Rs.800/- after deducting Rs.200/-.  The opposite party has given evasive reply for deduction of Rs.200/- from the advance amount.  The actions of the opposite party put the complainant into severe metal agony and harassment and thereby the opposite party has committed deficiency of service.  The complainant issued a legal notice on 20.06.2018 demanding Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.200/- deducted from the advance amount and the opposite party has not replied or paid even after receipt of notice and hence this complaint.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THEOPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party submitted that the complainant has approached opposite party with an intention to purchase Grey colour UNICORN 150 motorbike and payment of Rs.1,000/- paid and receipt no. 0037975 was issued, as per invoice the cost of vehicle is Rs.83,000/- on road including vehicle registration charges.  The complainant informed that he going to purchase the vehicle by cash without loan for the remaining amount. As per the terms and conditions of the showroom, whenever the vehicle on transit from manufacturing unit Gurgaon arrives and minimum period of 40 days required for the safer side of  both dealer and customer subject to availability of colours.  The vehicle will be delivered after completion of all procedures including registration with RTO Office and for this additional 10 days will be taken.   The opposite party states that these terms and conditions were accepted by the complainant and paid the advance of Rs.1,000/- for which booking no. 2092 and receipt no. 37975 dated 26.02.2018 was issued.  The opposite party further submits that within 15 days the complainant was informed that the vehicle was ready for delivery and informed to pay the balance payment for the registration and delivery of vehicle.  The opposite party stated that the complainant informed that he was out of station and the vehicle may be delivered to third part and he will take the vehicle on the next transit subject to availability of grey colours.  The opposite party stated that the complainant deliberately avoided taking the delivery of vehicle inspite of information given to the complainant.  The opposite party stated that after obtaining approval from complainant the vehicle was sold and afterwards the complainant came to the opposite party and voluntarily asked refund of advance and after due verification a cheque bearing no. 007545 dated 08.05.2018 drawn on HDFC Bank was prepared for Rs.800/- after deducting cancellation charges of Rs.200/- and the same was received by the complainant on 30.05.2018.  The complainant while receiving the cheque no claim or dispute raised in respect of deduction of Rs.200/-.  The opposite party has not given reply to the notice is not purposely or wantonly because the notice was received by the showroom office and it may be by oversight not brought to the notice of concern officer or manager of the showroom.  The opposite party denies the allegations in para 3 to 9 of the complaint made by complainant.    The opposite party stated that no complaint has been made out as alleged by the complainant for the negligence of service for the deduction of Rs.200/-, as the cancellation charges is right of the opposite party to maintain the records and follow-up action in this service-oriented business.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked on his side.  The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 was marked on the opposite party side.

4. POINT NO :1 :-

          The complainant has paid an advance amount of Rs.1,000/- on 26.02.2018 vide receipt no. 37975 towards booking of UNICORN-150 motorbike and he was allotted booking id no. 2092 with a promise to deliver the vehicle after 40 days after payment of balance amount of Rs.83,000/- by cash.  After 40 days the opposite party failed to deliver the vehicle and gave evasive reply, and the complainant immediately asked the opposite party to return the advance amount of Rs.1,000/- for which the opposite party paid Rs.800/- after deducting Rs.200/- from the advance amount that too after continuous follow-up on 28.05.2018 by Cheque No. 007545 drawn on HDFC Bank.   It is contended by the complainant that the opposite party failed to deliver the vehicle even after the complainant was ready to make balance payment and informed that it will be delivered only after receipt of next lot of arrivals and because of deficiency in service by the opposite party the complainant was put into severe metal agony and harassment and hence claimed Rs. 5 lacks as compensation and also to return Rs.200/- deducted from the advance amount.

          5. But, on the other hand the opposite party contended that the vehicle was ready for delivery and the same was informed to complainant who in-turn informed the opposite party that he was out of station and the vehicle may be given to third party and he will take the vehicle during the next lot arrival.  Due to non-availability of vehicle during his visit to the showroom, the complainant asked for the refund of advance amount of Rs.1,000/- and the opposite party refunded a sum of Rs.800/- after deducting Rs.200/- towards cancellation charges vide cheque no. 007545 dated 08.05.2018 drawn on HDFC Bank.  Therefore according to the opposite party, the complainant has not paid the balance amount of cost of vehicle and hesitate to take  delivery of vehicle and rather asked for refund of advance amount paid by the complainant and hence contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

          6. It is found from the Ex.A1, that the complainant has booked a vehicle by paying an advance amount of Rs.1,000/- vide receipt no. 0037975 dated 26.02.2018 and booking no. 2092.  Ex.A2 the challan copy and bank statement for receipt of refund of advance amount of Rs.800/-.  Ex.A3 the legal notice issued by the complainant.  Ex.A4 acknowledgement card for receipt of legal notice by opposite party.  Ex.B1 is the payment voucher for Rs.800/- paid to Complainant.  It is found from the Ex.A1 that the complainant had booked the vehicle and paid advance booking amount and as per Ex.A2, he has received back Rs.800/- from the advance payment.  The opposite party stated in their written version that the refund cheque was ready on 08.05.2018, but the complainant received the cheque on 30.05.2018 only.  As per Ex. A2, the cheque date was 28.05.2018 and it was deposited in complainant account on 31.05.2018.  As per Ex. B1 of opposite party the payment voucher is dated 26 May 2018 and hence the contention of the opposite party that cheque was ready on 08.05.2018 was not correct.  There is no evidence regarding intimation given by the opposite party regarding readiness of vehicle for delivery and the complainant was out of station on that date and further there is no proof with regard to the contention of the opposite party that the vehicle was given to third party and complainant  accepted to take vehicle during arrival of next lot.  There is also no proof about the complainant’s allegation against the opposite party regarding selling of vehicle to others on higher price above vehicle price and failed to prove unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  There is no dispute by both parties in demanding advance amount by the complainant.  As per Ex.A1 the refund if any, will be given only by cheque.  As per Ex.A2 the Complainant has received the refund of Rs.800/- and deposited the same in his account.  There is no evidence that the complainant has raised any protest for deduction of cancellation charges of Rs.200/- since he deposited the cheque issued by the Opposite party in his account without making any protest or objection. The Complainant has not paid the full consideration for the vehicle, but only demanded refund of advance amount and the opposite party has refunded the same after deducting the cancellation charges which is as per the trade custom of the opposite party for the charges incurred to maintain the records and for the follow-up action in the service oriented business. The complainant is not entitled to seek for return of the said Rs.200/- which was deducted by the opposite party.   Hence it is found that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Point no 1 answered accordingly.

7. Point No.2.

Based on findings given in point no.1  it is found that the complainant failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service by the opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint and point No.2 is  answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 20^th  day of  June 2022.

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	26.02.2018	Xerox copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party
Ex.A2	31.05.2018	Xerox copy of complainant’s pass book and challan copy
Ex.A3	20.06.2018	Notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite party
Ex.A4		Acknowledgement card

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1

26.05.2018

Payment Voucher

 

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT