DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD

Dated this the   16^th day of  August, 2022

Present  :  Sri.Vinay Menon V., President        

             :   Smt.Vidya A., Member

             :   Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member

Date of filing: 15/11/2019

                                           CC/269/2019

  Monisha Mohan Sarathe,                        -         Complainant               

  W/o.Dileep N A,  

  Raja Nivas, Para, Elapully

  Palakkad 679 622.

   (By Adv. C. Madavankutty))      

                                                 Vs

   1.The Manager                       

      ALY TATA (HP Continental ALY TATA VI

      Wheelers) Pvt. Ltd., Mina Palza,

      2^nd mile, Kallekkad, Palakkad-678 006.

       (Ex parte)

2.  The Manager,                                      -             Opposite Parties

     Tata Motors Ltd., 4^th Floor, Line in Tower,

     NH Bye Pass, Opp. Gold Souk,

     Cochin-682 019.

3.  The  Manager,

     Tata Motors  Ltd., 4^th Floor,

     82 Mahakali Caves Rd, MIDC Andheri East,

     Mumbai-400 093.

     (OPs 2 & 3 Advs.V Krishna Menon & B Sulfikar Ali)

                                                 O R D E R

By Smt.Vidya A., Member

Pleadings of the complainant in brief.

1.           The complainant booked a TATA NEXON XZ +CBST(Diesel) car from the 1^st opposite party who is a dealer of Tata Cars.  On 13.04.2019, she paid an advance amount of Rs.15,000/- to the 1^st opposite party and after one month 3 lakh rupees was paid to them as per their demand.  Finally full amount was demanded by the 1^st opposite party to get the delivery of the vehicle within 15 days and as per that balance amount of Rs.8,35,953/- was paid by the complainant.  Even after full settlement, they did not deliver the vehicle.  As they failed to deliver it, the complainant demanded the refund of the amount paid by her, but they did not refund it.  Finally they gave a signed letter with the confirmation of refunding the amount through cheque bearing No. 524906 from the account maintained by the 2^nd opposite party and made the complainant believe that there is enough fund in the account to honour the cheque.  But, when the cheque was presented in the bank, it was dishonoured for the reason “Funds insufficient”.

            The conduct of the opposite parties had caused irreparable injury, loss and mental agony to the complainant.  This is an Unfair Trade Practice and gross Deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party, the Divisional Office and 3^rd opposite party, the manufacturer of the TATA vehicle are also responsible for the act of the 1^st opposite party.

              Hence this complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to pay

    (a) Rs.11,50,953/- with interest at 9% p.a from 16.08.2019.

    (b) to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for the mental agony & damages suffered by the

          complainant.

   (c)  to grant other reliefs which the forum finds fit to grant.

2.        Complaint was admitted and registered notices were issued to the opposite parties.  Opposite parties 2 & 3 entered appearance and filed their version.   Even after the receipt of notice, 1^st opposite party did not appear and they were set ex-parte.

3.         The pleadings of opposite party 2 & 3 in brief is as follows.

         After denying the complaint averments, opposite parties 2 & 3 contended that there has been no privity of contract between the complainant and these opposite parties.  The records maintained with these opposite parties do not indicate any booking received in the name of the complainant.  The relationship between these opposite parties and the 1^st opposite party is of principal to principal and they cannot be held liable or responsible if the cheque issued by the 1^st opposite party in favour of the complainant was not honoured on presentation.  There is no Deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice  on the part of these opposite parties and they are in no way responsible to compensate the complainant and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.

4.         From the pleadings, the following points arise for consideration.

            1. Whether there is any Deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice on

                 the part of the  1^st opposite party?

            2. Whether opposite parties 2 & 3 liable for the act of the 1^st opposite

                 party?

           3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

           4. Reliefs, as cost & compensation.

5.           Complainant filed proof affidavit in Evidence and Ext A1 to A6 were marked.  The opposite parties 2 & 3 did not file their proof affidavit and there was no representation from their part after 07.09.2021, so their evidence was closed.  Complainant was heard.

               Point 1

6.        Complainant’s   grievance is that after making full payment towards the purchase of vehicle ‘TATA NEXON’, the 1^st opposite party did not deliver the car.  On demand made by the complainant for the refund of the amount, the 1^st opposite party issued a cheque bearing No.524906 from the account maintained    by the 2^nd opposite party.  On presentation of the cheque in the Bank, it was dishonoured for   the reason “Funds insufficient.”

7.          Exts A1 to A3 ‘Bank receipt sales vouchers” shows the payment of Rs.15,000/- on 13.04.2019, Rs. 3,00,000/- on 04.06.2019 and Rs. 8,35,953/- on 16.07.2019.  So the complainant had paid a total amount Rs.11,50,953/- to the 1^st opposite party for the purchase of the vehicle.

8.         From Ext A9, the  letter issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant, it is evident that they assured to refund the amount of Rs.11,50,953/- through cheque on 06.08.2019 and Ext A5 is the copy of the cheque no.524906 dated 16.08.2019 for the amount of Rs.11,50,953/-.  Ext A6 shows the dishonour of the cheque for the reason “Funds insufficient.”

9.      So from the Exts A1 to A6, the contention of the complainant is proved.   

        There is Deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party in not    

       delivering the vehicle on a timely manner even after receiving the full

       amount.    Further the 1^st opposite party failed to refund the amount  

      when they could not deliver the vehicle. The 1^st opposite party is also

      liable for the Unfair Trade Practice of issuing a cheque without sufficient

      balance in the account and the cheque was returned for the reason

      “Funds insufficient”.  They are liable to  compensate the complainant for

       that.

              Since 1^st opposite party remained ex-parte, even after receiving notice from the Commission,  the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged. 

            Point No. 2

10.      The 1^st opposite party is the dealer of the vehicle manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party and 2^nd opposite party is their branch office.  There is nothing on record to show that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties received any amount from the complainant. So no liability is cast upon them for the act of the 1^st opposite party.

       Points 3 &4

11.  The complainant would have definitely undergone mental agony  when

       the vehicle was not delivered to her even after full payment.  Further the

       opposite parties assured her to refund the amount and gave a cheque  in

      furtherance of that and the same was dishonoured for the reason of

      “insufficient fund”.   The conduct of the opposite party  made her to file

      this complaint causing mental agony, financial loss and other

      inconveniences for which the opposite party is liable.

           In the result, the complaint is allowed.  We direct the 1^st opposite party

   1.  To refund Rs.11,50,953/- with interest at the rate of 9% from 16.08.2019 till realization.

  2.   We further direct the 1^st opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for their Deficiency in service, Rs.25,000/-  (Twenty five thousand only) for the Unfair Trade Practice and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only )as cost of the litigation.

              The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party is liable to give Rs.250/- as solatium  per month or part thereof till the date of payment.

Pronounced in the open court on this the  16 ^th day of August, 2022.

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                     Vinay Menon V

                                          President

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                          Vidya A

                                            Member

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                  Krishnankutty N.K

                                                                                            Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1–Original Bank receipts sales voucher dated 13.04.2019.

Ext. A2–Original Bank receipt sales voucher dated 04.06.2019.

Ext. A3–Original Bank receipt sales voucher dated  16.07.2019.

Ext. A4–Photocopy letter issued by 1^st op dated 15.07.2019.

Ext. A5–Photocopy of cheque issued 1^st op dated 16.08.2019.

Ext. A6– Photocopy of cheque  return memo dated 16.08.2019.

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL

Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL

Cost: 15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand only).