Date of filing : 08-06-2012
Date of order : 21-01-2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.197/2012
Dated this, the 21st day of January 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Safiya, W/o. Hassankutty, House No.4/306, : Complainant
Kottoor House, Po.Kottoor,
Kasaragod Taluk and Dist.
(Adv.A.Balakrishnan Nair, Kasaragod)
1. The Manager, Sakthi Automobiles, : Opposite parties
M.G.Road, Anangoore, Kasaragod.
2. M/s.Sakthi Automobiles, Regd.Office, 180,
Race Course Road, Comibatore. 641018.
(Ops 1 & 2 Adv.P.V.Jayarajan, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER
The brief case of the complainant is that she has booked TATA bus chassis by paying an advance amount of Rs.22,250/- on 22-02-2011 through opposite party. The complainant paid balance amount Rs.10,50,000/- as per DD dt. 28-02-2011 drawn Indus Ind Bank Kanhangad branch. The opposite party agreed to deliver the vehicle on 2-3-2011 by believing the words of the opposite party complainant made arrangements for body building with J.K.Coach Auto Engineering Works Talpady by paying an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance for purchasing materials for body building.
2. The complainant further submits that she sold her vehicle KL-13L -131 for a sale price of Rs.5,90,000/- and hew vehicle was urgently needed for her to replace with route permit on or before 1-4-2011. The complainant paid full amount for the vehicle to the opposite party by availing loan from Inds Ind Bank. And the EMI was fixed as Rs.28,100/- she started paying the instalment from 2011 March onwards. Since the opposite party failed to deliver the chassis as agreed the DD was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant caused a registered lawyer notice on 10-05-2011 and the opposite party delivered the chassis on 8-7-2011. Because of the delay in delivery of the chassis the complainant had to pay the enhanced insurance premium an additional expenses of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the body builder and paid instalment with interest to the bank w.e.f. 1-4-2011 till July 2011 without using the vehicle. Moreover the complainant did not deliver the old vehicle to the purchaser since she was constrained to retain the same till August 2011. The acts of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite parties appeared and filed version contending that the complainant booked TATA bus chassis by paying an advance amount on 26-02-2011 not on 22-02-2011 hence the balance amount of Rs.10,50,000/- received by them on 10-03-2011 instead of 28-02-2011. There was a shortage of stock of the specified vehicles the opposite parties returned the DD for Rs.10,50,000/- submitted by the complainant to the financier. Subsequently when the stock was ready the financier issued another DD and by the time the price of the vehicle was hiked from Rs.11,27,244/- to Rs.11,61,595/-. It is further submitted that in order to compensate the inconvenience caused to the complainant they have given a reduction of Rs.89,345/- contended that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from their side since they have already compensated for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. And therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.
4. The complainant’s husband was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked and opposite parties counsel represented that they have no oral evidence. The evidence of PW1 and all the documents produced before the court were carefully perused. In this particular case the complainant booked TATA bus chassis by paying an amount of Rs.22,250/- on 26-02-2011 and thereafter the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.10,50,000/- as per DD dt.28-02-2011 drawn on Indus Ind Bank, Kanhangad branch. The same is substantiated by the complainant as per Exts A1 & A3.As per the complainant at time of booking the chassis the opposite party agreed to deliver the vehicle on 2-3-2011. On the basis of that assurance PW1 made arrangements for body building with J.K. Coach Auto Engineering Works, Talapady by paying an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for purchasing materials for body building. Moreover, the complainant also sold her old vehicle KL-13- L-131 for a sale price of Rs.5,90,000/- and she wanted to replace the permit of the vehicle with the new one. All these arrangements were made only on the assurance that the bus chassis will be delivered to the complainant as per the assurance given by the opposite parties herein. On the basis of Exts.A7 that is the letter issued by the body building works which clarified the case of the complainant that she had already entrusted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ for a body building and as per the said order they have purchased wood and steel for the chassis the Ext.A7 further stated about the inconvenience caused to the body building proprietor due to the delay in handing over the chassis to him. By evaluating the entire evidence the Forum finds that the complainant paid the entire amount to the opposite parties only if there is any assurance about the delivery of the chassis within a specified period and also the case of the opposite party is that by considering the inconvenience caused to the complainant they already compensated the complainant by giving a reduction of Rs.89,345/- . By giving that reduction the opposite parties herein admits their deficiency of service from their part and they delivered the vehicle to the complainant at the rate prevailing on the date of payment of Rs. 10,72,250/- inspite of the rate of the said vehicle on the date of delivery was Rs.11,61,595/- and they further contended that since they compensated the complainant for their deficiency and inconvenience caused to her, she cannot penalize the opposite party further. But the Forum is of opinion that the opposite parties were ready to deliver the vehicle with a reduction of Rs.89,345/- itself is a clear admission of their deficiency in service. It cannot be considered as a reduction from their side were as the complainant is entitled for the same since she had paid the full amount as per Ext.A3 only on the basis of the assurance from the opposite parties herein. There is nothing to disbelieve the case of the complainant that the non-delivery of the vehicle resulted in huge loss to the complainant for the tune of Rs.50,000/-, the enhancement of body building charges, she had sustained loss since she was constrained to retain the old bus for replacing the route permit and also she had paid instalments with interest without plying the vehicle as well as Rs. 8,355/- i.e the interest for the period from 28-02-2011 to 8-7-2011 including the loss sustained in other heads.
Therefore the complainant is entitled for compensation for the loss sustained by her due to the deficiency in service from the opposite parties. In the result the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a cost of Rs.5000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- will carry interest @ 12% per annum.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.26-02-2011 Copy of receipt for an amount of Rs. 22,250/-
A2.26-02-2011 Copy of receipt for an amount of Rs.
A3. 10-03-2011 copy of Receipt for an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/-
A4. 23-03-2011 copy of Receipt for an amount of Rs.28100/-
A5. 20-04-2011 copy of Receipt for an amount of Rs. 28100/-.
A6. 10-05-2011 Copy of lawyer notice
A7.20-05-2011 Letter issued by Jayalaxmi Body Building Works to K.Safiya
A8.01-06-11 Reply notice
A9. 27-03-2012 Order of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority
A10 Copy of Motor third Party Premium-Schedule of premium rates w.e.f. 1st April, 2012
A11. Copy of Certificate of Insurance
PW1. K. Hassankutty.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
