IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the   31^st   Day of  January   2023

  Present: -  Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,President(I/C)

                   Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                                                CC.191/2020

Stanly Chacko                                                      :         Complainant

Haritham,

Jawahar Nagar Residents Association-93 A,

Jawahar Junction

Pattathanam P.O

Kollam-691021.

[By Adv.S.Riyas]

V/s

1. The Managing Director                               :         Opposite parties

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 1

Nelson Mandela Road

Vasanth Kunj

New Delhi-110070.

2. The  Manager

Indus Motor Co.Pvt.Ltd,

Pattom-Kesavadasapuram Road

Near St.Mary’s School

Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala-695004.

3. The Manager

Indus Motor Co. Pvt.Ltd,

Sarathy junction, Karicode

TKMC P.O, Kollam.

[By Adv.C.R.Sureshkumar]

FINAL  ORDER

S.SANDHYA RANI, B Sc, LLB, PRESIDENT(I/C)

          The complainant is a retired Government employee.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the Maruti Suzuki Cars.  The 2^nd opposite party is the authorized dealer of 1^st opposite party and 3^rd opposite party is the branch manager of  2^nd opposite party at Kollam.  In the 1^st week of March 2020, the complainant has approached the 3^rd opposite party for purchasing a brand new WagonR model car on exchange basis.  By believing the words of 3^rd opposite party that the new vehicle shall be delivered within 7 days of its booking,  the complainant has booked a brand new Wagon R ZXI I.2L BS-VI  superior model vehicle on 10.03.2020 and paid Rs.20,000/- by way of advance and received booking order bearing No.78401.  Before the said booking the technician of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party has inspected the old vehicle of the complainant and agreed to pay Rs.1,80,000/-. (Rs.1,60,000/- being the value of the old vehicle and Rs.20,000/- as ex loyalty price).  Therefore the 3^rd opposite party intimated the complainant that the road price of the new vehicle would come Rs.6,46,963/-, out of which Rs.5,57,286/- being the value of the new vehicle, Rs.50,155/- as its road tax, Rs.29,037/- as the insurance amount, Rs.8,543/- as other expenses and Rs.1942/- towards its registration charges.   On the next day itself the complainant had received a whatsapp message from the 2^nd opposite party narrating the new vehicle is allotted to him with chasis No.274654 and customer ID No.KLM 1355048.  Thereafter the Manager of 3^rd opposite party demanded the balance amount covered in the booking form on the assurance that the vehicle would be delivered on 21.03.2020 and the complainant has paid Rs.4,00,000/- through bank cheque after adjusting the value of the old vehicle.  Though the 3^rd opposite party had assured to deliver the new vehicle on 21.03.2020 and the old vehicle for exchange was taken by him on 20.03.2020,  3^rd opposite party couldn’t deliver the same as promised due to the non registration of the vehicle in the concerned RT office and that was happened due to the failure of uploading the details of new vehicle by 1^st opposite party manufacturer.   The 3^rd opposite party assured the complainant that the temporary registration would be done before 23.03.2020 and the vehicle shall be delivered on 23.03.2020 but opposite party didn’t delivered the same.  Subsequently lock down was declared by the Central and State Governments due to Covid 19 pandemic.  Thereafter the 3^rd opposite party informed the complainant that he would not bother about any additional payment for registration of the vehicle that any such charges would be managed by the 3^rd opposite party itself.   Thereafter the old vehicle was taken by the 3^rd opposite party on 13.05.2020  and the new vehicle was delivered to him on 20.05.2020 along with possession letter.  But the ownership of the exchanged vehicle is yet to be transferred.  On perusal of the new vehicle it was found that the stepeny tyre fitted by the 1^st opposite party in the new car was defective and when the same was informed the 3^rd opposite party he has taken away the said stepeny tyre on the promise that a defect free stepeny would  be delivered within two days but the opposite parties have failed to deliver the same in time.  Again the 3^rd opposite party compelled the complainant for a further payment of Rs.62,271/- and he had paid the same also.  But on perusal of the said bill he could realize that Rs.11,146/- was collected by  opposite parties 2&3 by way of excess road tax.  When the complainant enquired of the excess collection with the staff of 3^rd opposite party they have behaved in a very rough manner.  Thereafter whenever the complainant contacted with the personnels of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties they have responded in a very harsh, irritating and indecent manner.  Thereafter the complainant had made several complaints to 1^st opposite party through emails demanding the excess amount collected from him and the stepeny tyre, but stepeny tyre was handed over only on 01.07.2020 ie, after a period of 41 days from the delivery of the vehicle and during those period the complainant could use the vehicle limitedly and reluctantly which caused mental agony to him.  The complainant had paid Rs.4,20,000/- being the value of the vehicle to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party on 19.03.2020 but the vehicle was delivered only on 20.05.2020.  According to the complainant he is entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% for Rs.4,20,000/- from opposite parties No.2&3.    According to the complainant due to the non billing  of the vehicle at the time of payment of  Rs.4,20,000/- the complainant had to pay unnecessarily an excess amount of Rs.11,146/- by way of additional road tax and the same would have been avoided by the opposite parties if they had acted promptly at the relevant time and which amounts to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of  opposite parties.  The above mentioned acts on the part of the opposite parties caused much mental agony, hardship and financial burden to the complainant.  Hence he claims Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.10,000/- being costs of the proceedings.  Hence the complaint. 

          Opposite parties 2 and 3 deny all the allegations except which are specifically admitted.  They are admitted that the complainant had approached 3^rd opposite party for purchasing a car and booked the vehicle, but they have not promised to deliver the same within 7 days of its booking and also they have not compelled to make any payments.  But due to the pandemic situation of Covid the government proclaimed lock down from 22.03.2020, so they couldn’t deliver  the vehicle within the promised period and the new vehicle was handed over to the complaint only on 20.05.2020.  The opposite parties further contented that they have not collected any road tax additionally but it was collected against the increased road tax by the state government from 1^st April 2020.  Hence that increase of  tax made by the government can only be received from the government itself.  The opposite parties are premier car sellers in Kerala and elsewhere being business oriented people they wouldn’t behave rudely with any customer and they are maintaining the principle “customer king”.   The issue regarding the stepeny tyre was a minute one and that was replaced by the manufacturer under the guidance of opposite parties No.2&3.   It is further contented that if the delay occurred in replacement of defective stepeny tyre is considered as  deficiency in service then the complainant should file separate complaint against the manufacturing company since opposite parties No.2&3 have nothing  do with that issue.  The allegation regarding original policy certificate mentioned in the complaint is doubtful with respect to which vehicle  it was mentioned.  The opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation and costs to the complainant nor liable to refund the excess road tax collected from the complainant. Since April and May was under a lock down neither the vehicle could be used nor registered even banks declared moratorium.  Hence the complaint to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

          In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3?
2. Whether the opposite parties 2&3 are liable to return Rs.11,146/- with interest to the complainant which they have collected by way of excess road tax?
3. Whether the opposite parties 2&3 are liable to pay interest @12% from 19.03.2020 to 20.05.2020 in respect of Rs.4,20,000/- which was paid by the complainant towards the value of the new vehicle on 19.03.2020?
4. Whether opposite parties No.1 to3 are liable to pay compensation to the complainant?
5. Reliefs and costs.

Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of 9 documents which are marked as Ext.A1 to A9.Opposite party No.1 set exparte.Though opposite parties 2 and 3 have filed vakalath and version they didn’t turned up hence set exparte.Head the counsel for the complainant.

Point no.1 to 4

          For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials first 4 points are considered together.  The following facts are undisputed rather admitted in the complaint.  Ext.A1  booking order No.78401 issued by 3^rd opposite party evidencing that the complainant had booked a Wagon R ZXI I.2L BS-VI superior  on 10.03.2020 having on road price Rs.6,46,963/- and paid Rs.20,000/- towards advance.   On 11.03.2020 he has received a whatsapp message(Ext.A2) from 2^nd opposite party that the new vehicle was allotted to him with chasis No.274654 and customer ID No.KL-M-1355048.  Before the said booking technician of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party inspected the old vehicle of the complainant and fixed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- towards the total value of the same including Rs.20,000/- as ex loyalty price and also informed the complainant that the road price of the new car would come Rs.6,46,963/- which includes the value of the new vehicle Rs.5,57,286/-, road tax Rs.50,155/-, insurance Rs.29,037/-, other expenses Rs.8543/- and registration expenses  Rs.1942/-.

          By believing the words of 3^rd opposite party that the vehicle would be delivered on 21.03.2020 the complainant has paid Rs.4,00,000/-  which is evident from Ext.A3 cheque receipt dated 19.03.2020 issued by 2^nd opposite party and the old vehicle was also taken by 3^rd opposite party on 20.03.2020.  Thereafter the 3^rd opposite party informed the complainant that he is not able to handover the new vehicle in time because the 1^st opposite party has failed to upload the details of the new car, hence the 3^rd opposite party  couldn’t deliver the vehicle even on 23.03.2020.  Subsequently lock down was declared by the Central and State governments due to Covid 19 pandemic.  At that time the 3^rd opposite party has given an assurance to the complainant that if any kind of additional payment would be required to be paid by way of registration or any other charges, all those amounts would be paid by themselves.  After several enquiries and email communications from the part of  the complainant on 13.05.2020 the 3^rd opposite party has taken the old vehicle Ext.A4 evidencing the complainant has issued possession letter along with the vehicle but ownership of the exchanged vehicle not yet changed.  Ext.A5 tax invoice indicating that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant only on 20.05.2020 and Ext.A6 reveals that the complainant has made another payment of Rs.62,271/-.  But on perusal of the said Ext.A6 bill the complainant could realize that the opposite parties 2&3 were collected Rs.62271/- by way of road tax instead of Rs.50,155/- as per Ext.A1 booking order.  When the complainant enquired about the excess collection of road tax, the staff of 3^rd opposite party behaved in a very rough manner and on 20.05.2020 it was found that the stepeny tyre fitted by the 1^st opposite party was defective and the same was replaced by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party on 01.07.2020 after a period of 41 days.

          According to the complainant he had paid Rs.4,20,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party on 19.03.2020 by the value of the  car but he has received the vehicle only on 20.05.2020.  Hence he is entitled to get interest for the said amount at the rate of  12% from opposite party No.2&3.  Due to the non billing of the vehicle at the time of  payment of Rs.4,20,000/- he had to pay an excess amount of Rs.11,146/- by way of additional road tax.   Moreover 1^st opposite party has taken a period of 41 days to replace the defective stepeny tyre with a good one.  During those period the complainant could only use the vehicle limitedly and reluctantly. 

The main contention raised by the opposite parties No.2&3 that though the alleged vehicle was allotted on 11.03.2020 due to lockdown issue they couldn’t issue temporary registration on that month and there occurred a price hike on road tax from 1^st April 2020 onwards and that became applicable to the vehicles which has not done the permanent registration before 1^st April 2020.  Again contented that the said increase in road tax was imposed not by the opposite parties but  by the State Government, so they are not bound to refund the additional amount  of Rs.11,146/- received from the complainant by way of excess road tax.

          It is pertinent to note that though the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- on 11.03.2020 by way of booking advance and paid the entire balance Rs.4,00,000/- on 19.03.2020 against the value of the alleged new car, the opposite parties have delivered the vehicle only on 20.05.2020 which indicates that the opposite parties have failed to comply the promise that they would deliver the booked vehicle within 7 days of its booking. 

          It is evident from Ext.A9 letter of apology that road tax was increased by the government from 1^st April 2020 onwards and the same price hike in tax was applicable to vehicles which has not done the permanent registration before 1^st April 2020.  But it is true that though the complainant had paid the entire value of the new car Rs.4,20,000/- before lock down,  the opposite parties have failed to complete the registration process before 1^st April 2020 which is purely deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2&3.  The said delay caused by the opposite parties have made the complainant to pay road tax Rs.62,271/- instead of Rs.50,155/- as per Ext.A1 booking order.  In other words, if the new vehicle was delivered during March 2020 the complainant would not have to pay any excess amount by way of road tax.  Hence it is crystal clear that the above mentioned acts on the part of opposite parties 2 and 3 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

          It is also clear from the version filed by opposite parties 2 and 3 that the registration of the new vehicle before the concerned RTO was delayed not due to the fault from their part but it was due to the delay in uploading the details of the new vehicle  by the 1^st opposite party manufacturer which would indicate that there exists deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

          It is further to be noted that the defective stepeny tyre of the new vehicle was replaced after a period of 41 days of complaining the same.  Again Ext.A8 e-mail communications evidencing that though the complainant had informed the opposite parties several time to get it cured the above mentioned grievances, they didn’t take any initiative to solve his problems in time.  Being the manufacturer, authorizes dealers and service center of Maruti Suzuki cars the opposite parties 1 to 3 ought to have rendered prompt service to the complainant as promised in their advertisements, user’s manual and hand book,  but  here the opposite parties have failed in complying the said promise.  In the circumstances how the opposite parties 2 and 3 can claim that they are maintaining the principle “customer is the king”.

          In view of the materials discussed above we are of the view that there is deficiency in  service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3 in this transaction  and thereby the complainant has sustained mental agony as well as financial loss.  In the circumstances the complainant is entitled to get all the reliefs sought for.  The points answered accordingly. 

Point No.5

      In the result  the complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. The opposite parties 2&3 are directed to return Rs.11,146/- received from  the complainant by way of excess tax.
2. The opposite parties  2 and 3 are directed to pay interest @9% from 19.03.2020 to 20.05.2020 in respect of Rs.4,20,000/- to the complainant which was paid by the complainant towards the value of the new vehicle on 19.03.2020.
3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.15000/- to the complainant  as compensation for mental agony, hardship and financial loss.
4. The opposite parties are directed to transfer the ownership of the exchanged vehicle from the name of the complainant.

Opposite parties are directed to comply with above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to  recover the same along with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of complaint till realization from the  opposite parties 1 to 3 and its assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the    31^st   day of    January    2023.

S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

Stanly Harold:Sd/-

Forwarded/by order

Senior Superintendent

INDEX  

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant\

Ext A1:        Order Booking/Commitment Checklist.

Ext A2:        True copy of watsapp message.

Ext.A3:       Cheque receipt.

Ext.A4 :      Possession letter.

Ext.A5        :Tax/vehicle invoice.

Ext.A6        : True copy of online tax receipt.

Ext.A7        : E-mail communication.

Ext.A8        : True copy of e-mail communication.

Ext.A9        : True copy of letter of apology.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for the opposite party:-Nil