DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of January 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 27/07/2016
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.113/2016)
Sunitha.P,
W/o.Kesavdas,
96, Kamakshi Nilayam,
Chandranagar Colony,
Palakkad – 678 007 - Complainant
(By Adv.V.S.Shibu)
V/s
1.The Manager
Indus Motor Company Pvt.Ltd.
Door No.VI,366,367
N.H.47(NH544) Koottupatha Post,
Palakkad – 678 007
2.Ramdas,
Sales Executive,
Indus Motor Company Pvt.Ltd.
Door No.VI,366,367,
N.H.47(NH544) Koottupatha Post,
Palakkad – 678 007 - Opposite parties
(By Adv.P.K.Aboobacker (Edappally) )
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of complaint.
Complainant had booked Maruti Suzuki Celerio Zxi AMT (O) from the opposite parties. At the time of booking opposite parties promised to deliver the vehicle within 15 days from the date of booking, i.e. 30/5/2016. For that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.20,000/ - on the same day. After 10 days of payment of the booking amount, the complainant enquired about the delivery of the vehicle with the opposite parties and it was informed that the vehicle has been dispatched from the Maruti Suzuki plant at Delhi and the vehicle will be delivered to the complainant at the end of June 2016. When there was no communication from the opposite parties even after last week of June 2016, the complainant again enquired with the opposite parties about the delivery of the vehicle and it was then informed by the opposite parties that the available vehicle is Celerio Vxi model and if the complainant is willing to take the Celerio Vxi model, the vehicle would be delivered immediately. But the complainant was not willing to take the Vxi model because the model booked by the complainant, Celerio Zxi AMT (O) has safety features such as ABS braking, airbags and automatic gear. When there was no communication from the opposite parties, on 4/7/2016 complainant tendered a registered notice to the opposite parties demanding them to deliver the booked model Celerio Zxi AMT (O) within 8th July 2016 which was neither acknowledged nor replied by the opposite parties. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay the advance amount of Rs.20,000/- alongwith 12% interest, compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of this proceedings to the complainant.
After admitting the complaint notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties filed version contending the following:
Opposite parties admitted the booking of Maruti Celerio Lxi AMT (O) on 30/5/2016. These opposite parties had not given any promise to deliver the vehicle within ten or fifteen days from 30/5/2012. Opposite parties contended that they are only the dealer of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Clause (2) of the terms and condition of sale printed booking form says “Vehicle will be delivered strictly in the order of receipt of customer booking subject to payment and other formalities. Approximate delivery period given in the order booking form is only indicative. Vehicle delivery will however be subject to availability of vehicles”. The said period as stated in the terms and condition are only indicative and the dealer can deliver the vehicle only subject to the dispatching of the vehicle from the manufacturer as mentioned in the order booking form. The tentative period of delivery of the vehicle was only shown as 1 month in the order booking form. Tentative period may vary due to different reasons and the complainant had agreed to that and he had signed the order booking form after reading the terms and conditions mentioned therein and fully knowing about that.
Opposite parties further contended that during June 2016, there occurred a large fire accident in the A/c adapter unit of Maruti Vehicles which resulted in delay in dispatching of Maruti Vehicles from the Factory. This fact was duly informed to complainant when he had enquired about the delivery of the vehicle. During the last week of June 2016 the vehicle of the complainant had reached from Maruti and this fact was duly informed to the complainant but he was not ready to take delivery of the vehicle, but against that he had caused to issue a lawyer notice to these opposite parties and on receipt of the notice these opposite parties had contacted the complainant over telephone and told that if the complainant is ready to take delivery of the vehicle she can take delivery of the same or else these opposite parties are prepared to return the advance amount received from her. But she had not approached these opposite parties. No dealer can overlook the priority of booking of any customer and if any seniority is overlooked it will affect the dealership from Maruti.
These opposite parties had never violated any of the terms mentioned in the terms and conditions printed on the order booking form. No loss had been sustained by the complainant as stated in the complaint. No mental agony had been caused to the complainant and the same had been mentioned only for the purpose of this case. The complainant is not entitled for any of the relief sought for in the complaint. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.
Complainant and opposite parties filed their respective chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A5 marked on the side of complainant. Ext B1 marked from the side of the opposite parties.
The following issues are considered
1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2.If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1 and 2
Complainant and opposite parties heard. We have perused the documents on record. Ext.A1 booking order form proves that complainant had booked CELERIO ZXI AMT (O) on 30-5-2016 and tentative waiting period is one month. Complainant submitted that the opposite parties gave her an assurance that the vehicle will be delivered within 10-15 days. In order to prove this statement complainant did not adduce any evidence before the forum. Hence the statement of the complainant cannot be taken into consideration. Opposite parties contended that during the last week of June 2016 the vehicle of the complainant had reached from Maruti and this fact was duly informed to the complainant but she was not ready to take the delivery of the vehicle. At the same time Ext.A5 - e-mail transaction between the opposite parties and complainant shows that the expected date of delivery is on or after 26-7-2016 ie, after 56 days of its booking. Stand taken by the opposite parties is proved as false by its own e-mail transaction. Hence we cannot believe the contentions of the opposite parties. Ext.A2 to A4 evident that complainant had sent a lawyer notice to the opposite parties. No reply was sent to the complainant. Under the above circumstances we are of the view that non delivery of the ordered vehicle within the stipulated period of one month amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
Hence complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) being the advance amount paid to the opposite parties, Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of proceedings.
Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of January 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Order booking receipt dated 30/5/16
Ext.A2 - Photocopy of registered notice sent by the complainant to opposite
party dated 4/7/16
Ext.A3 - Postal receipt
Ext.A4 - Photostat copy of delivery tracking note issued by postal
department
Ext.A5 – Print out of email message
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.B1 – Photocopy of Order booking form sent by opposite party to the
complainant dtd.30/5/16
Cost
Rs.2,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
