D.o.F:29/9/2011
D.o.O:29/2/2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.247/11
Dated this, the 29th day of February 2012
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Jameela.A.M, W/o K.Basheer,
Jameela Manzil, Kalanad PO, Kasaragod.Dt. : Complainant
(Adv.George John Plamoottil,Kasaragod)
1.Manager, Popular Vehicles& Services Ltd,
Kanhangad South, Kanhangad Po.
2.The General Manager,
Popular Vehicles& Services Ltd, Regional Office, : Opposite parties
Kuttukaran Centre, Manamangalam, Cochin-25.
(Adv. Mohnkumar Hosdurg)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
Bereft of unnecessaries the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties failed to deliver the Maruti Swift VDI car as against their assurance to deliver it within 3 months from the date of booking. According to complainant he booked the car on 16/3/2011 by remitting `50,000/- but the opposite parties did not deliver the vehicle as promised by them till 31/7/2011. Thereafter a lawyer notice was caused on 20/8/2011. But even then the car is not delivered. Therefore the complainant praying for an order directing the opposite parties to deliver the Dizire VDI Car with a compensation of `1,00,000/-.
2. Opposite parties appeared and filed version. According to opposite parties there was no promise or assurance to deliver the car within 3 months from the date of booking. While booking the car complainant signed the order booking form in which it is mentioned that opposite parties are not responsible for any delay in delivery of the vehicle due to any unforeseen circumstances. According to opposite parties there was a strike in the Maruti car manufacturing company and due to that unforeseen circumstances delay occurred in delivery of the vehicle. Further the vehicle was delivered on 24/9/2011 But the complainant in her complaint has alleged that the vehicle has not delivered. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Both sides heard and on the side of opposite party Exts.B1 to B3 marked. No documents produced and marked on the side of complainant. The Ext.B1 is the copy of the reply notice dtd. 26/8/11 and Ext.B2 is the copy of the order booking form. Ext.B3 is the copy of the Mathrubhumi, a vernacular daily dtd 9/6/2011.
4. In Ext.B2 it is clearly mentioned the terms and conditions No.3 that they are not responsible for any delay in the delivery of the vehicle due to any unforeseen circumstances. Ext.B3 newspaper report is about the loss of Maruti car company on account of the strike in the company.
5. Upon hearing both the counsels and on perusing the above documents it is clear that the opposite parties has not committed any unfair trade practice in delivering the vehicle. Further it is also clear that the complainant filed this complaint only after taking delivery of the vehicle and suppressing the delivery of the vehicle. Had she been genuinely aggrieved in the alleged delay then she ought to have filed the complaint before the delivery of the car. Therefore it is clear that complainant filed this complaint only to harass the opposite parties by unnecessarily dragging them in to the forum.
Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the cost to the opposite parties .
In the result complaint is dismissed with a cost of `1000/- to the opposite parties.
Exts:
B1-26/8/11- copy of reply notice
B2-copy of order booking form
B3-Mathrubhumi daily.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva /Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
