THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.76/2012
Dated this the 31st day of December 2012.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt. Jayasree Kallat, M.A. : Member
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
Bindya.K, AO, LIC of India, Branch office, Kalpetta } Complainant
Pin-673121. }
1) The Manager, Tata Motors Ltd, Shared Services, }
Pimpri, Pune-411018. } Opposite parties.
(Rep.by Adv.Menon & Menon, Kochi) }
2) KVR Motors, West Hill, Kozhikode. }
(Rep.by Adv.Z.P.Zachariah, Calicut)
ORDER
By Jayasree Kallat, Member
The petition was filed on 14-02-2012. The complainant had booked for a Tata Nano car on 22-4-2009 through the dealers K.V.R. Dream Vehicles, Kannur. Complainant had submitted the application at K.V.R. Motors, Kozhikode. Opposite party had allotted identification number to the complainant which is 112408635 by Tata Motors. Later on complainant was transferred to L.I.C. of India, Coonoor Branch. Meanwhile complainant had cancelled her booking for the Nano car. She had received the booking amount after one and half years, but did not receive the interest portion. By the time three cheques for the interest reached the complainant in her new address the cheques became stale. Complainant had returned the cheques to Tata Motors, Poona on 19-01-2011 to be replenished with fresh cheques. But there was no response from the opposite party-1, Tata Motors. Complainant had made efforts for follow up action but there was no reply from opposite party-1. Hence this petition is filed seeking relief.
Opposite party-1 has not filed any version. Opposite party-2 filed version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Opposite party-2 is not a necessary party in the complaint. From the complaint itself it is clear that the complainant has not entered into any transaction with second opposite party. There is no deficiency of service from opposite party-2. The complainant had booked the Tata Nano car through the dealers at Kannur. K.V. R. Motors is a dealer of Bajaj Auto Limited and is dealing in the two wheelers and three wheelers manufactured by Bajaj Auto only. Hence impleading K.V.R. Motors, Kozhikode is a misjoinder. Complainant had booked Tata Nano car and the cheques were issued to the Tata Motors only. As there is no complaint against Opposite party-2. Opposite party-2 prays to dismiss the complaint against Opposite party-2.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so what is the quantum?
The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral evidence or documents on the side of opposite party-1 and 2.
The complainant’s case is that she had booked a Tata Nano car on 22-4-2009. The booking amount was Rs.1,20,000/-. She had later on cancelled the booking. Opposite party had refunded the booking amount of Rs.1,20,000/- after one and half years. Opposite party had sent three cheques as interest on the booking amount to the complainant. According to the complainant by the time the cheques reached her they had become stale. Complainant had returned the cheques to the Opposite party in order to get fresh cheques. Even though the stale cheque were returned on January 2011 Opposite party has not taken any action to furnish fresh cheque. According to the complainant the delay caused by the Opposite party to furnish fresh cheque is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party. Opposite party-1 had submitted that they had already sent the refund cheques to the address which she had furnished while booking the car. Opposite party also has a case that the complainant is not residing at present in the address while she had booked the car. Complainant has admitted in her deposition that she has not intimated the new address to Tata Motors. The refund cheques and interest cheques were sent to the booking address and they were re-directed to the fresh address. Opposite party-1 has argued that the interest cheques were sent to the original booking address supplied by the complainant and they were re-directed from there to her new address, and delay had occurred for the same reason. Due to the delay in sending the cheques from the booking address to the fresh address of the complainant the interest cheques had become stale. After hearing the arguments put forward by both complainant and Opposite parties it has come out that the complainant has not received the interest portion till now. Hence we are of the opinion that she is entitled for the interest amount.
The complainant has sought for return of the interest amount along with interest as well. From the evidence it has come out that the complainant had got transferred and hence the cheques sent it to the booking address had to be re-directed to the present address. The delay in receiving the cheques was due to the cheques being re-directed. In such a situation Opposite parties have argued that though she is entitled for the interest cheques she is not entitled for further interest for the delay because the delay had not caused due to any deficiency on the part of the Opposite parties. Any way the documents produced by the complainant shows that the complainant had booked the car on 22-04-2009. According to the complainant she received the refund amount after canceling the booking one and a half years later. The interest cheques were also received at a later stage. Complainant had returned the interest cheques as they became stale as early as 19-01-2011. Complainant had filed the petition before the Forum after waiting to get the refund for one year. Even after the case is filed on 14-02-2012 in Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum the opposite parties have not taken any steps to pay the interest cheques. Hence the Forum is of the opinion that complainant is entitled for a compensation along with the three cheques amount.
In the result petition is allowed and opposite party-1 is directed to pay the interest cheques amount of Rs.7017/- along with a compensation of Rs.2500/- for the mental agony and hardship the complainant had to suffer due to the delay in getting the amount. Opposite party-1 has to comply the order within one month from the date of receiving the order.
Pronounced in the open court this the 31st day of December 2012.
Date of filing:14.02.2012.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-EMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant
A1.Application form for Tata Nano Booking
A2.Letter enclosed with stale cheques sent to Tata Motors on 19.01.2011.
A3.Letter from Tata Motors regarding the retention of the Tata Nano booking amount
A4. Letter from Postal Authorities regarding the delivery of the article to Tata Motors
Ltd Pimpri, Pune on 28.01.2011.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Bindya.k (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
