Date of filing : 07.01.2019
Date of order : 02.11.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L. MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
WEDNESDAY THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 3/2019
V. Sathyachandran,
Son of Venketraman,
53, 8th Cross Street,
Sri Raghavendra Nagar,
Vanniyampattai,
Arakkonam – 631 003. …Complainant
-Vs-
Sayar Aautomotive (P) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager,
No.31/2-A, Bangalore to Chennai Highway,
Perumugai,
Vellore – 632 009. …Opposite party
Complainant : Thiru. V. Sathyachandran (Party-in-person)
Counsel for opposite party : Tmt. N. Sunobar
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble commission to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,21,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty One Thousand only) for negligence of service and mental agony.
1. The Case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant is the owner of a (INDICA DLS) Car bearing registration No. TN 09 M 6090. He has approached the opposite party to purchase a new car on exchange of his old car. The opposite party fixed the price of the old car at Rs.60,000/- and the cost of the proposed to purchase new car TIAGO WIZZ 2017model was six lakhs and above. The complainant is eligible for 5.25 Lakhs loan from TATA finance on monthly EMI system. The opposite party after deducting the value of the exchange the car of Rs.60,000/-, he was eligible for a loan amount of Rs.5,25,000/-. Apart from this amount, the opposite party asked the complainant to deposit Rs.31,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.31,000/- on 30.01.2018. The allegation of the complainant is that on receipt of the aforesaid payment, the opposite party promised to deliver the vehicle on 05.09.2018. But the opposite party, failed to deliver the vehicle as promised. Therefore, the complainant wanted to cancel the aforesaid car and asked to return of his old car and the advance amount of Rs.31,000/-. But the opposite party informed the complainant that the complainant’s old car was already sold. The allegation of the complainant is that when he questioned that without his signature and DO form, how the car was sold, but there was no proper response from the opposite party. The complainant had visited on several occasions from 11.09.2018 to till date, but nothing happened. Therefore, the complainant approached this Hon’ble Commission for the refund of the amount which had already paid and the refund of the value of the car. Hence this complaint.
2. The written version of opposite party is as follows:
Admitting that the complainant approached the opposite party for purchase of new car with her free offer of air bag and music system. Infact, the exchange value of the car was fixed only at Rs.20,000/- and not Rs.60,000/-. Since, the car was 15 years old and it has only the fit for scrap. The complainant desired to have a TIAGO XE-2018 Model car on with the offer of air bag and music system. Since, such features are available to that particular model, then the complainant himself spontaneously agreed to purchase TIAGO WIZZ 2017 model car which has offer of air bag and music system as desired by the complainant. The complainant voluntarily remitted an advance amount of Rs.1000/- on 23.08.2018 and booked TIAGO WIZZ 2017 model car. The road price of TIAGO WIZZ 2017 model car was Rs.6,56,741/- and after deducting the exchange value of his old INDICA 2003 model car for Rs.20,000/-, bonus offer of Rs.10,000/-, stock clearance offer of Rs.4,600/- and the Insurance offer of Rs.25,400/- totally Rs.60,000/-. The balance amount to be paid by the complainant arrived at Rs.5,96,741/-. The complainant opted to avail financial assistance through TATA Motors Finance Ltd., to the tune of Rs.5,11,830/- and the balance amount of Rs.84,911/- is to be paid by him. The complainant remitted a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 31.08.2018 vide cash receipt No.1242 and promised to remit the balance amount while taking the delivery of the new car. TATA Motors Finance Ltd., has also approved the loan and issued release order on 07.09.2018 itself. The car was to be delivered on 05.09.2018 but the opposite party failed to deliver the car and further there was no proper response to the complainant about the delivery date, these entire allegations are denied. When the finance itself was approved only on 07.09.2018 by the TATA Motors Finance Ltd., how can the car be delivered on 05.09.2018 without releasing the fund, furthermore the complainant had also not fulfilled his obligation on paying the balance of Rs.53,911/- to the opposite party. Therefore, there is no merit on the case of the complainant and liable to be dismissed.
3. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. Proof affidavit of opposite party filed. Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked. Written arguments of both sides filed. Oral arguments of both sides heard.
4. The Points that arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
5. POINT NOS.1 & 2:
The complainant had approached the opposite party to purchase a new car on exchange of his old car. According to the complainant after the negotiations with the opposite party, he decided to purchase TATA TIAGO WIZZ 2017 model car, for which he has paid Rs.1,000/- by way of booking advance and subsequently his old car was taken for exchange and that car was valued by the opposite party for Rs.60,000/- and the TATA Finance sanctioned Rs.5,25,000/- as a loan. Further he has also paid Rs.30,000/- the balance amount for the same. But for some or other reason the opposite party did not deliver the vehicle in time i.e. on 05.09.2018. Therefore, the opposite party chose to cancel the entire transaction and request for the return of his old vehicle along with the amount he has paid by way of advance i.e. Rs.31,000/-. But, on coming to know that before delivery of the new car to the complainant, the opposite party sold his old car to some third party, for which he did not obtain any authorization from the complainant. Therefore according to the complaint the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to return the cost of the old car and whatever he has paid by way of advance amount i.e. Rs.31,000/-. On the other hand the opposite party, admitting the complainant version that the complainant had approached the opposite party to purchase the TIAGO WIZZ 2017 model car for which he has agreed to give his old car as exchange for which this opposite party valued for Rs.20,000/- and not Rs.60,000/-. However, the new car was not delivered to the complainant for some or other reason. The only issue that has to be decided is whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount which he has already paid as advance and return of his old car. Admittedly, the opposite party did not refund the amount they have received by way of the booking advance as well as the balance amount of Rs.30,000/-. In so far as the value of the complainant old car, the complainant states that the value of his car was Rs.60,000/- whereas the opposite party stating that only 20,000/- for which the complainant did not produce any material evidence, whereas the opposite party produced a document as if the value of the car was Rs.20,000/-. But the documents have not been handed over to the complainant prior to the filing this complaint. Further on going through the entire averments both in complaint and as well as the written version, the balance amount after adjusting the value of the car of the complainant and the booking advance they asked to pay only Rs.30,000/- from which we inferred that if at all more than is Rs.30,000/- the complainant should have to pay the opposite party at that time itself raise a bill for Rs.53,911/-, whereas they have asked to remit only Rs.30,000/-. From this, we infer that initially the opposite party agreed to exchange his vehicle for Rs.60,000/- after dispute was arisen they might have returned value to Rs.20,000/-. Further to show their bonofideres the opposite party did not return advance amount paid by the complainant. Therefore, the opposite party should have paid immediately after cancellation of the new car by the complainant but despite receipt of the legal notice also they have not refunded. Hence we find that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, These Point Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.
6. Point No.3: As we have decided in Point Nos.1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is hereby directed to refund of Rs.91,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousand only) the amount paid by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. Hence, this Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.
In the result, this complaint is allowed. The opposite party is hereby directed to refund of Rs.91,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousand only) the amount paid by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 2nd November 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAIANNT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1-23.08.2018 - Copy of bill
Ex.A2-22.09.2018 – Copy of complainant letter
Ex.A3 - Un-served postal covers and acknowledgement cards
Ex.A4 - Copy of legal notice
Ex.A5 - Email sent by complainant
Ex.A6 - Copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTY SIDES DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B1-23.08.2018 - Copy of cash receipt
Ex.B2-31.08.2018 - Copy of cash receipt
Ex.B3-29.08.2018 - Copy of delivery receipt
Ex.B4-07.09.2018 - Copy of TATA Finance Release
Ex.B5-07.09.2018 - Copy of Policy
Ex.B6 - Copy of Price list
Ex.B7-31.08.2018 - Tax Invoice
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER –I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
