IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 11th day of August, 2021
Filed on 29.01.2019
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholy.P.R.BA, LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.31/2019
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Rajesh 1. The Manager
S/o Sasi Raman Popular Vehicles &Services
Kochamparambu Opposite Muttom SCB
Mannanchery.P.O Maythara.P.O, Cherthala
Alappuzha
(Adv. R.Rachana) 2. The Manager
Popular Vehicles &Services
Pvt. Ltd, Head Office.
Mamangalam, Kochi.
(Adv. Jayan.C.Das for Op1 &2)
3. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd
Regd. Office, Plot No.1
Vasanthkunju, New Delhi-71
(Adv. Sri. Jayan C.Das)
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
On 8/8/2018 complainant booked a Maruti Swift Grey Colour car with the 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.5000/-. It was assured that delivery will be affected on 18/8/2018. The colour was selected by seeing photograph in mobile phone. Later after seeing a vehicle which was brought for service, complainant changed the colour to red. Accordingly they agreed to deliver the vehicle on 21-8-2018 after changing the colour. The vehicle was not delivered on 21/8/2018 and delivery date was changed to 29/8/2018. On 28/8/2018 one Rajneesh who was an executive demanded to purchase extra fittings worth Rs. 47,000/- and contented that if it is not purchased delivery will be delayed. Accordingly complainant purchased extra fittings worth Rs.13,350/-.
2. On 4/9/2018 complainant along with his friend reached the showroom at 10’ Clock and waited till 5’Clock but delivery was not effected. However at about 6 PM the executive of 1st opposite party informed the complainant that the vehicle has reached the showroom and on the next day at 12’clock the vehicle will be delivered at the house of the complainant. Though at the time of booking the vehicle 1st opposite party had offered 10 items only 4 items were given. Scratch and Win card being the Onam offer was also not given to the complainant.
3. Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from M/s Kotak Mahindra. Before delivering the vehicle complainant had to pay one EMI since the delivery was delayed which caused much inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant. This amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint is filed for realizing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
4. Opposite party 1 and 2 filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
On 8/8/2018 complainant booked a car but there was no assurance to deliver the vehicle on 18/8/2018. It was informed that it will take about 3 months to deliver the vehicle. Complainant had booked a Grey colour car after seeing the details of the lap tops and pamled.
5. Later complainant changed the colour to red and it was informed that delay will be occurred and it was agreed by the complainant. There was no compulsion to purchase extra fittings. Infact complainant selected items from the 1st opposite party. There was no assurance to deliver the vehicle on 4/9/2018. On 5/9/2018 the vehicle was delivered at the house of the complainant. Though the tenure of scratch and win was over it was offered to the complainant and he refused to accept the same. There was no deficiency of service from the part of these opposite parties and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
6. 3rd opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is wholly misconceived against this opposite party. Complainant will not come under the definition of consumer as per the 2 .1(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This opposite party is the manufacturer of Maruti vehicles. This opposite party sells vehicle to the dealers and they are selling the vehicle to the customers. The contract between this opposite party and the dealers are principle to principle basis and there is no privity of contract between this opposite party and the complainant. Complainant has not raised any allegation against this opposite party. There is no cause of action against this opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
7. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
1.Whether there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony?
4. Reliefs and cost?
8. Evidence in this case consist of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 from the side of the opposite parties.
9. Point No.1 to 3:-
PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A4
10. RW1 is the District Manager of Opposite parties 1 and 2. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version and marked Ext.B1 and B2.
11. The case of PW1, the complainant is that as per Ext.A1 receipt voucher on 08.08.18, he booked a Maruti Swift LXI Metallic Magma grey colour car with the first opposite party. The executives of the 1st opposite party assured that delivery will be effected on 18.08.18. PW1 selected the colour by seeing the photographs in the mobile phone, since car was not available at the showroom. However later when a car of gray colour came for servicing 1st opposite party contacted PW1 and he visited the shop. He was not satisfied with the colour and so he changed the colour to red. After initial resistance 1st opposite party agreed to change the colour. However he informed that the delivery will be delayed to 21.08.18 later to 29.08.18 and to 04.09.18. PW1 has got a further case that he was compelled to purchase extra fittings for an amount of Rs. 47,000/-. However PW1 purchased extra fittings worth Rs.13,350/-. His further case is that as onam offer there was scratch and win card but it was not provided to him. He availed loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from M/s Kotak Mahindra. Though PW1 and his friend waited at the showroom till 3.30 PM on 04.09.18 vehicle was not delivered and on 05.09.18 at 12 O’clock in the noon the vehicle was delivered at his house by the 1st opposite party. He has got a case that the items which were offered was of low quality. According to PW1 he sustained mental agony due to the delay in delivery of the vehicle and hence claiming an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of monitory loss and Rs.25,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony. Complainant got examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a joint version denying the allegations. According to them 1st PW1 selected a gray colour car and later since he was not satisfied with the colour red colour was selected. Since red colour was not readily available delay occurred and according to them the delay was not purposeful. Since there was no deficiency of service the complaint is only to be dismissed. The 3rd opposite party M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. who is the manufacturer of the car filed a separate version contenting that they are unnecessary party in this complaint. They are only manufacturing cars and it is marketed by dealers throughout India. The agreement between dealers and manufacturer is on principal to principal basis. They are not liable for any delay occurred from the part of other opposite parties. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The District Manager of opposite parties No.1 got examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked.
12. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the complainant it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that he has to pay one EMI in advance before delivery of the vehicle since the bill was generated prior to delivery date. Opposite parties have got a satisfactory explanation for the same. According to them gray colour vehicle was readily available and so Ext.B1 invoice was generated on 11.08.18. Thereafter PW1 changed the colour of the vehicle and so Ext.B2 vehicle invoice was generated on 29.08.18. Even admitted by PW1 the vehicle was delivered on 05.09.18. So according to learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 1to 3 after generating Ext.B2 vehicle invoice on 29.08.18 within a week ie, on 05.09.18 the vehicle was delivered. Hence according to them there is no much delay.
13. From Ext.A1 receipt voucher it is seen that PW1 booked a vehicle on 08.08.18 by paying an advance amount of Rs.5,000/-. Admittedly at the time of booking PW1 selected gray colour vehicle seeing the photographs and not seeing the vehicle. However when he saw a gray coloured vehicle directly he was not satisfied with the colour and so the colour was changed to red. From Ext.B1 vehicle invoice it is seen that it was generated on 11.08.18 and the colour of the vehicle is shown as gray. So it can be seen that though as per Ext.A1 the vehicle was booked on 08.08.18. Ext.B1 with respect to gray colour of the vehicle was generated on 11.08.18 ie, within 3 days. Thereafter the colour change occurred and Ext.B2 for red coloured vehicle was generated on 29.08.18 and the vehicle was delivered on 05.09.18 at the residence of complainant. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties there was not much delay in delivering the vehicle and the delay is only of one week which is tolerable. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant pointed out that complainant had to pay one EMI in advance since the invoice was generated earlier. As stated earlier opposite party cannot be blamed for generating the invoice earlier. Ext.B1 was generated with respect of gray colour vehicle on 11.08.18. It is to be remembered that since PW1 was not satisfied with gray colour, the colour was changed and Ext.B2 with respect of red colour was generated on 29.08.18 and delivery was effected on 05.09.18. So the contention that PW1 had to pay one EMI in advance is due to his own fault in selecting the colour of the vehicle. Even otherwise complainant had to pay all the EMIs and the authorized dealer cannot be blamed for that.
14. Complainant had got a further case that he was compelled to purchase accessories worth Rs.47,000/- but he purchased accessories for Rs.13,350/-. However it is seen that no evidence was adduced on that aspect except a bald allegation in the complaint and chief affidavit. Even the chief affidavit it is stated that he agreed to purchase extra fittings for Rs.13,350/-. If there was compulsion he could deny the purchase. The further contention of PW1 is that though 10 items were offered he was provided with only 4 items and that also substandard item. However there is no evidence on record to prove such an allegation. So from assessing the evidence as a whole it can be seen that the delay in delivering the vehicle occurred due to the change of colour selected by PW1 after booking the vehicle. From Ext.B1 and B2 it is seen that earlier invoice was generated with respect to gray coloured vehicle and since there was a colour change Ext.B2 invoice was generated with respect to red coloured vehicle. Ext.B2 is dated 29.08.18 and the vehicle was delivered within a week ie, 05.09.18 at the residence of the complainant. So it can be seen that there is not much delay in delivering the vehicle and so it cannot be contented that there was deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties No.1 and 2. 3rd opposite party is not liable since they are only the manufacturer and their relationship with other opposite parties is that of principal to principal basis.
15. PW1 is claiming an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of monitory loss. No document is seen produced by PW1 as to how he sustained a loss of Rs.1,00,000/- only because the delivery was delayed by one week. Similarly he is claiming an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony. As discussed earlier the delay occurred since there was a colour change and the opposite parties cannot be blamed for the same since PW1 himself changed the colour since he was not satisfied with the initial colour selected by him. In the circumstances it can be seen that complainant could not prove any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties and so he is not entitled for any relief. These points are found against the complainant.
16. Point No.4:-
In the result complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 11th day of August, 2021.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President):
Sd/-Smt. Sholy P.R (Member):
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Rajesh.K.S(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Receipt Voucher dtd.8/8/2018
Ext.A2 - Copy of complaint
Ext.A3 - Counter Sale Retail Invoice dtd.4/9/2018
Ext.A4 - Statement of Account
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Vimal.P (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Tax/Vehicle Invoice dtd.11/8/2018
Ext.B2 - Tax/Vehicle Invoice dtd.29-8-2018
True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
