BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 8th day of November, 2005
CD No. 121/2005
M. Jagadeeswara Reddy, S/o. M. Bali Reddy,
Flat No. 303, Neha Towers, Saptagiri Nagar, Near Ayyappa- Swamy Temple (New), Kurnool.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Manager, M/s M.S.V. Motors,
Abdullah Khan Estate, Opp. Zilla Parishad, Kurnool. . . . Opposite party
The complaint coming on 7.11.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri R. Murali Krishna, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri S.T Ali Khan, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri K.V.H.Prasad, Hon’ble President)
1. This Consumer Case of complainant is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay him interest at 24% per annum from 31.3.2003 to 16.4.2003 on amount of Rs. 2,28,052/- and costs of complaint along with Rs.5,000/- for mental agony accrued at the deficiency of service of opposite party alleging the payment of Rs. 2,28,052/- to the opposite party vide DD No. 632367/ dated 31.3.2003 of SBI Bhudavar Pet, Kurnool to wards the cost of Maruthi Car of E2 standard model and the opposite party booking vehicle on 16.4.2003 instead of 31.3.2003 and colleting on extra amount of Rs.623/- from the complainant at the time of delivery of said vehicle on 16.4.2003 and the said delay in booking the vehicle and delivery amounts to deficiency of service.
2. The written version of the opposite party besides questioning the justness and the maintainability of the complainant case, even though admit the receipt of demand draft for Rs.2,28,052/- from the complainant towards cost of the said car, deny any belated booking and delivery and there by any mental agony to the complainant as the said vehicle was readily available with opposite part y by the date of complainant paying said amount to the opposite party through a demand draft and the delivery of the vehicle on 16.4.2003 was due to unreadiness of the complainant to take its delivery on some pretext or other and the payment of Rs. 623/- by complainant was as per terms and conditions invoice made towards the hike in price as applicable on the date of taking delivery of the said vehicle on 16.4.2003 from show room of the opposite party and ultimately deny any valid cause of action to the complainant’s case as the complainant satisfied with approach of the opposite party and explanation offered by the later to the notice of the complainant dt 27.11.2003 and so seeks dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex A.1 to A.5 besides to his self sworn affidavit in reiteration of his case and the reply of the opposite party to his interrogatories, the opposite party side has relied upon documentary record in Ex B.1, besides to its self sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence and the reply of the complainant to its interrogatories.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant made out any case of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party so as to fix the liability of the opposite party to claim of the complainant.
5. The Ex A.1 is the attested copy of receipt dt 31.3.2003. It envisages the receipt of Rs. 2,.28,052/- by the opposite party from the complainant towards the cost of Maruthi Car. The receipt of said amount from the complaint being admitted by the opposite party, the material in Ex A.1 remains to have been proved conclusively to the effect that the said amount therein was paid for booking 800 standard Car.
6. If no booking of the said vehicle was required as alleged in the written version pleadings of the opposite party as a vehicle was said tobe readily available by 31.3.2003 with the opposite party, in the Ex A.1 it would not have been mentioned for booking and would have been stated it as to the price of the said vehicle if its satisfies the then existence price or if the price is more than what was received under it must have been mentioned as towards the part of the amount of the price and the balance that be due be paid at the time of delivery of said vehicle. As no such stipulations appear therein it remains without any further say that the amount under Ex A.1 was received by the opposite party towards the price of said Maruthi Car for which the complainant approached the opposite party on 31.3.2003.
7. If there is no necessity of the booking of the vehicle to meet the requirement of the complainant, as alleged in the written version pleading of the opposite party, as the said vehicle was said to be readily available with him by the31.3.2003 itself vide Ex B.1, the invoice No. 1648945 of Maruthi Udyog Limited dt 28.3.2003 in favour of the opposite party and is ready for delivery from the opposite party to complainant, the Ex A.3 invoice dated 16.4.2003 issued infavour of complainant would not have stated the date of booking of the vehicle for complainant as 16.4.2003, especially when the ExA.1 says the amount therein was received on 31.3.2003 by the opposite party for booking the said vehicle. Further if the availability of the said car with the opposite party under Ex B.1 is available for ready delivery to the complainant the opposite party would not have received 2.28.052/- as cost of the said vehicle in the absence of any material in substantiation of said amount as the then existing cost of said vehicle, especially when the cost of each of said vehicle, as per the details mentioned therein as cost of two vehicles, is working out Rs. 1,71,847.64p ( i.e 3,43,695.28 divided by two).
8. The contention of the complainant is that the opposite party collected an extra amount of the Rs.623/- on the date of delivery of said vehicle as escalated cost. If the Ex B.1 is tobe taken as genuine and reflecting cost of the vehicle on the said date of delivery on 16.4.2003 and if the complainant is bound to pay the said cost on the date of delivery irrespective of the amount paid on 31.3.2003 for booking said vehicle, the cost of the vehicle i.e Maruthi Car, mentioned in Ex B.1 being Rs. 2,03,528/-the amount of Rs. 2,28,052/- received by the opposite party under Ex A.1 being in excess of Rs. 24,524/- ( i.e 2,28,052/- - Rs. 2,03528/-) there appears any justification to the opposite party for collection of 623/- under Ex A.2 from the complainant as balance cost of the said vehicle, in the absence of any material showing the price of the said vehicle either on the date of ExA.1 or on the date of Ex A.3 as Rs. 2,28.675/- ( i.e Rs. 2,28,052/- + Rs.623/- ) especially when the opposite party kept silent to the notice of the complainant in Ex A.5 which is alleging the facts of the case, without availing the said earliest opportunity to put up its defence to make believe the bonafidies therein.
9. In the circumstances discussed above the defence of the opposite party as to the availability of the Maruthi Car with it by the date of ExA.1 itself under Ex B.1 for delivery to the complainant and the complainant by his own lapsive conduct delayed the taking of delivery of the said vehicle to 16.4.2003 remains not believable and thereby there remains any reasonable and justifiable circumstances to the opposite party for collection of an additional amount of Rs.623/- under Ex A.2 from the complainant and ultimately delaying of the vehicle to the complainant till 16.4.2003.
10. Consequently, there appears every reason to be believed of the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in delayed delivery of the said vehicle booked to the complainant and in collection of Rs.623/- and causing mental agony to the complainant by said lapsive conduct. So the opposite party is liable to pay to the complainant the interest at the 12 % per annum on the said amount of Rs. 2,28,052/- from 31.3.2003 to 16.4.2003 and Rs.623/- colleted under Ex A.2 and Rs.1,000/- each under the counts of compensation for mental agony and costs of this case.
11. Therefore, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party the compliance of the supra stated award within month of the receipt of this order and in default the opposite party shall be liable to make good of the award amount with 12% interest till realization from said default.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, pronounced and corrected by us, in the Open Forum, on this the 8th day of November, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Attested copy of receipt No. 520, dt 31.3.2003 by the opposite party for
Rs. 2,28,052/-.
Ex A.2 Receipt No. 000025, dt 16.4.2003 by the opposite party for Rs.623/-.
Ex A.3 Attested copy of M.S.A Motors Invoice No. 1328 dt 16.4.2003, for
Rs. 2,03,528/-.
Ex A.4 Attested copy of delivery receipt dt 16.4.2003.
Ex A.5 Letter dt 27.11.2003 from M. Jagadeeswara Reddy, Non-Medical
Demonstrator, Kurnool Medical College to M/s. M.S.A. Motors, Kurnool.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite party:-
Ex B.1 Invoice No. 1648945 of Maruthi Udyog Ltd, dt 28.3.2003.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri R. Murali Kishore, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri S.T Ali Khan, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
