Date of filing : 11-01-2012
Date of order : 10-11-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.11/12
Dated this, the 10th day of November 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Jawahar Mathews, : Complainant
S/o.Mathews, Theruvapuzha House,
Chittarikkal,Po. Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv. M.Narayanan, Hosdurg)
1 Managing Director, ITL Motors Pvt.Ltd, : Opposite parties
12/43C,Feroke-Chungam, Calicut 673631
2 The Branch Manager, ITL Motors Pvt.Ltd
Near A.K.G.Hospital, Kannur.Po. Kannur
(Adv. O.C.Rajagopalan, Hosdurg)
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER
The gist of the complainant’s case is that on 27-06-2011 the complainant contacted opposite party No.2 at Kannur with an intention to purchase a Jeep Mahindra D1- 2WD. Opposite party No.1 is the head office and they are enjoying the dealer ship of Mahindra from Trissur to Kasaragod Dist. Opposite party No.2 is the branch office of opposite party No.1 in Kasaragod District including many other branches. While booking the Jeep opposite party No.2 informed that there will be a delay of 4 months in delivering the vehicle. Opposite party further stated that the vehicle is not available in other branches also and the vehicles are delivered as per the order received by them. The allotment was made by the opposite party No.1. The complainant remitted Rs.10,000/- and booked the vehicle on 27-06-2014. The total value of the vehicle was Rs.4,44,000/-. Eventhough the complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 on many occasions they failed to give a specific date on which the vehicle will be delivered. On 13-08-2011 Sales Executive namely Rajeesh contacted the complainant and informed that the vehicle is ready for delivery and the total price for the vehicle was Rs. 4,52,694/-. Therefore the complainant submitted the DD for Rs.4,34,890/- to opposite party No.2 on 17-08-2011 and balance amount was remitted in cash and taken the delivery of the vehicle. After the delivery of the vehicle it was reliably came to know that the vehicle was freely available from opposite party No.1’s office at Palakkad without any previous booking, and one person from his locality purchased the vehicle from Palakkad office without any previous booking. Due to this deficiency of service the complainant herein sustained loss of Rs.7,804/- . It caused monitory loss, mental agony and hardships to the complainant and hence this complaint.
2. Notice to the opposite parties served on them and Adv. O.C.Rajagopal filed vakalath and version. In the version opposite parties contended that the complaint is not maintainable before this forum for want of territorial jurisdiction. They contended that in the vehicle order taking form F the 11th condition is that all the disputes arising between the company and the buyer shall be instituted in the appropriate court within the jurisdiction of Palakkad and this complaint is liable to be dismissed on that ground.
3. The other averments in the complaint such as the case of overlooking the previous booking and the deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties were vehemently opposed by the opposite parties herein and contended that the complainant was not canvassed by the opposite party and it was informed at the time of booking itself that more than 4 months will be taken to deliver the vehicle. Since the vehicle was not ready it could not be delivered prior to the specified time and it was further opposed that a person from the complainant’s locality purchased without any previous booking and releasing the vehicle by over booking or ignoring the claims of other people who already booked the vehicle are totally false and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant examined as PW1 and marked Exts A1 to A 10. Opposite party represented that he has no oral evidence.
5. By going through the evidence and records before us it is clear that the complainant has purchased the subject matter in this case from opposite party. Eventhough the opposite party raised the question of maintainability with regard to the territorial jurisdiction as per IA 270/12 the issue was found in favour of the complainant and closed accordingly . The allegation of the complainant is that he had booked the Mahindra D1 2WD Jeep on 27-06-2011 and it was informed by opposite party No.2 that there will be a delay in delivery of the vehicle and the vehicle will be delivered to him strictly as per the order of booking on 27-06-2011 the complainant booked the Jeep by paying an advance consideration of Rs.10,000/- and the total consideration for the Jeep was an amount of Rs.4,44,000/-. The complainant was informed by opposite party No.2 on 13-08-2011 to submit the draft for the balance amount before 19-08-2011 as per this direction he paid amount to opposite party No.2. But surprisingly on 16-8-2011 the complainant was again informed from the office of opposite party that the value of the vehicle was increased for Rs.7804/-. The complainant paid that amount also. This is evident from Ext.A1 to A5. The vehicle was delivered on 20-08-2011 but after the delivery of the vehicle the complainant came to know that it was freely available from the other branches of opposite party No.1. and one of the persons namely sunil George from his locality purchased the vehicle without previous booking from opposite party No.1 Palakkad office. Opposite party No.1 Palakkad branch is releasing the vehicle by over looking the booking and ignoring the claim of the people like the complainant herein who had already booked in advance. As per Ext.A6 the price for the vehicle was shown as Rs.4,46,390/- but as per Ext.A2 the price of the same type of vehicle was shown as Rs.4,62,685/- while going through the cross-examination of PW1 he has stated that the above said Sunil has informed about the purchase of his vehicle on the same week when the complainant had purchased the subject matter of this case. He has further stated in chief that Sunil had told him that the vehicle is easily available in Palakkad Branch. Eventhough the opposite party has taken a contention that they are not responsible for the damages sustained by the complainant but the Mahindra company will be responsible for the damages. But it is to be noted that the vehicle was delivered by the opposite parties herein hence they cannot escape from the responsibility. The price hike of Rs.7804/- was only due to the delay in delivery of the vehicle from the date of booking. Therefore it amounts to deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties herein.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.7804/- being the amount received from the complainant in addition to the booking price and also pay an amount of Rs.3000/- cost to the complainant.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.27-06-2011 Vehicle Order taking form.
A2.23-07-2011 Photocopy of Proforma Invoice for an amount of Rs. 4,62,685/-
A3. Copy of Invoice Form-8B
A4. Copy of Receipt for an amount of Rs.4,34,890/-.
A5.17-08-2011 Copy of Receipt for an amount of Rs.25,829/-
A6. Copy of Proforma Invoice for an amount of Rs.4,46,390/-
A7.16-07-2011 Photocopy of Receipt issued by North Malabar Gamin Bank
A8.26-09-2011 Copy of lawyer notice
A9 & A10 Postal acknowledgment cards
PW1. Jawahar Mathews.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
