DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 20.09.2023.
CC/238/2023
1. Indu K.V, W/o. Ramesh, - Complainant
Aged 34 years, Korath house,
Perumala, Paruthipully,
Alathur Taluk, Palakkad Dist.
Pin-678 573.
(By Adv. C.Nandakumaran)
VS
1. The Manager, Indus Nexa, -Opposite Parties
Kozhikode Bypass Road,
Sekharipuram, Palakkad,
Pin-678 010.
2. Ramees, Indus NEXA,
Kozhikode Bypass Road,
Sekharipuram,
Palakkad-678 010.
3. Mahesh, Indus NEXA,
Kozhikode Bypass Road,
Sekharipuram,
Palakkad-678 010.
(All OPs are Ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant approached the 1st opposite party through the 2nd and the 3rd opposite parties for purchasing a car by Brand name ‘BREZZA’. The opposite parties assured that the vehicle BREZZA LXI white is ‘smart Hybrid variant and having high mileage’ and promised to deliver the vehicle within four months of booking. On believing their promise, the complainant booked the vehicle on 15.07.2022 on payment of Rs.3,000/-. She waited for four months; but they did not deliver the vehicle. As per the opposite parties demand, she made payment on 21.06.2023, 02.07.2023, 06.07.2023 and 07.07.2023 for the purchase of the vehicle and paid Rs.10,700/- for registration. The opposite parties delivered the vehicle after one year of its booking. After using the vehicle for sometime, the complainant felt that the vehicle is not giving the mileage as per the opposite party’s assurance and it is not ‘Smart Hybrid’ variant. Complainant approached the opposite parties for the replacement of the vehicle. Eventhough they admitted that the vehicle is not smart hybrid, they were not ready to replace it.
The opposite parties knowingly delivered the vehicle without the promised features. There is a difference of 1 lakh Rupees in the price of vehicle delivered and smart hybrid variant. The complainant had incurred a financial loss of Rs.1 lakh because of the act of the opposite parties and they are bound to compensate the complainant for that. The complainant sent registered lawyer notice to the opposite parties claiming compensation for the loss suffered. Eventhough they received notice, they did not sent reply or try to resolve the issue. So, she filed this complaint praying for the following reliefs;
1) To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- being the excess amount received by the opposite parties together with 12% interest.
2) To pay Rs.3 lakhs as compensation for their deficiency in service, mental agony and financial loss.
3) To pay the cost of the litigation.
2. After admitting complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not file version and were set ex-parte. Later, they filed version along with I.A.No.705/2023 to set aside ex-parte order and it was dismissed. The question of maintainability of complaint against the 2nd and the 3rd opposite parties were raised by this Commission as preliminary issue.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Evidence closed and heard the complainant.
4. Inorder to prove her case, the complainant produced four documents. Ext.A1 is the cash receipt dated 15.07.2022 issued by the 1st opposite party showing the payment of Rs.3,000/- for booking the vehicle. In Ext.A1, the vehicle name is shown as ‘BREZZA LXI WHITE’. Ext.A2 is the ‘Tax invoice’ dated 27.07.2023 issued by the 1st opposite party towards the purchase of the vehicle for an amount of Rs.8,29,000/-. Ext.A3 is the registered lawyer notice dated 14.08.2023 issued by the counsel for the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext.A4 dated 17.08.2023, the A D cards (3 in Nos) showing the receipt of lawyer notice.
5. The opposite parties failed to file version within statutory period and were set ex-parte. So, the complainant has only to prove a prima facie case against the opposite parties.
6. Complainant’s case is that she purchased the vehicle on the promise made by the opposite parties that it belonged to ‘smart hybrid’ variant. After using the vehicle for sometime, she understood that the vehicle is not getting the mileage as promised by the opposite parties and it is not a ‘smart hybrid variant’. She approached the opposite parties for replacement of the vehicle. But the opposite parties were not ready to replace it.
7. From Ext.A1 advance payment receipt and Ext.A2 Tax Invoice , it is not possible to identify that the complainant has booked smart hybrid variant. Exts.A1 and A2 show the vehicle name as BREZZA LXI. Whether it belonged to hybrid category or not is not mentioned. Complainant has failed to prove that the opposite parties had undertook to deliver smart hybrid variant and delivery was made contrary to such assurance. Further, she did not adduce any evidence to show that there is a difference in price between these two variants and the opposite parties had collected an amount of Rs.l lakh in excess.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of March, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Copy of booking receipt of the bike dated 15.07.2022.
Ext.A2: Invoice issued by the Indus Motor dated 27.07.2023.
Ext.A3: Notice issued to the opposite parties dated 14.08.2023 and its postal acknowledgement.
Ext.A4: A/D cards (3 in Nos) dated 17.08.2023.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure)Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
