IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Friday the  22^nd   day of  December, 2023

Filed on: 05.07.2023

Present

1. Smt. P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB  (President in Charge )
2. Smt.  C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.186/2023

     between

Dr. N. Bahuleyan                                                        1.  The Managing Director,

Pazhanjiyil Puthen Veedu                                                NCS Automotives Pvt. Ltd          

South Mankuzhi                                                               Kallumoodu,Kayamkulam-690537                                                     

Pullikanakku.P.O,                                                                  

Alappuzha-690537                                                    2.   The Managing Director, NCS Automotives

                                                                                        Pvtl Ltd, 35/422, Plathottam Complex

                                                                                        Near KSRTC Bus Stand, Thiruvalla

                                                                                       Pathanamthitta-689101       

                                                                                                (Adv. C. Muraleedharan for Ops)

O R D E R

SMT. SHOLY.P.R (PRESIDENT IN CHARGE)

Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

1.       Brief fact of complainants case are as follows:-

The complainant had booked an electric car from 1^st opposite party by paying an advance booking amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 1/10/2022.  Thereafter the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.5000/- on 9/10/2022 and Rs.6000/- on 11/10/2022 to the 1^st opposite party. As per the preliminary information sheet the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.9,22,374/- on 18/1/2022 to the opposite party.

Since the complainant knows the availability of the electric car during first week of January 2023, he contacted with the consumer relation advisor of the  1^st opposite party, and in that time though there was 4 electric cars available at the showroom, they did not revealed the complainant regarding the specifications and difference of cost of each type of cars, but compelled to book the model of TIAGO –EV base model.  The complainant had booked the said model of  vehicle  since the opposite party told the complainant only the difference of mileage of the vehicle to the  various model of cars.  The next day the consumer advisor of the  1^st opposite party  informed the instant delivery of the vehicle under the scheme of payment of full amount. On 4/1/2023 the complainant had paid the balance amount of Rs. 9,22,374/- for full payment. However it is learnt that there was no such scheme for the TATA Motors.  No confirmation or serial number was informed to the complainant. On enquiry to the electric vehicle department of the TATA Motors it was informed that the confirmation was with the 1^st opposite party and the delivery  of the car would be effected during the month of April. But it was not effected. The 1^st  and 2^nd opposite parties cheated the complainant by receiving the entire purchase price of the vehicle  without delivering the same as assured by them. The vehicle was delivered only on 14/4/2023. Alleging  cheating on the part of opposite parties this complaint filed for imposing punishment to the opposite  parties for misappropriating the money obtained from the complainant misleading by the alleged scheme and for compensation under different heads.

2.       Version filed  by the opposite parties  are as follows:-

Complaint is not maintainable either  in law or on facts.  The complainant is not a consumer as defined under Sec. 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant has no case there has been any deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties.  These opposite parties have unnecessarily been made a party to the proceedings.  The manufacturer TATA Motors Passenger vehicles Ltd, had initiated booking for the TATA Tiago EV model cars in 2022, with an initial plan to provide introductory prices for the 1^st  10,000 booking. However, due to the remarkable response and high demand from customers, the manufacturer had extended this introductory offer to the 1^st  20,000 customers. Though  the manufacturer had launched  the said car on 28/9/2022, it was only on 3/2/2023 that the manufacturer had officially commenced delivery of a limited number of TATA Tiago EV cars.

 The complainant approached the showroom of these opposite parties at Kayamkulam for booking a TATA EV car on 1/10/2022.  While making enquires, the complainant had specifically informed the Sales Executive of these opposite parties that he desired to book for a car within the price range of 10 lakhs . In view of this specific  request made by the complainant the Sales Executive had suggested the TATA Tiago EV XE MR car which was within the price range as desired by him. The sales Executive had furnished the complainant with the details and features  of the  other available variants even though they were priced far above the price range desired by the complainant.  On being informed of the various models and of the varying prices of  these models, the complainant  had of  his own volition opted for the TATA Tiago EV XE MR variant after understanding its features and benefits. Accordingly he had effected  the booking for this particular variant on 1/10/2022 and thereby availed the price protection that had been assured by the manufacturer.  The  TATA Tiago EV XE MR car was suggested to the complainant solely based on his preferences and budget  The TATA Tiago EV EX MR is one of  the latest models available in the market.

          The 2^nd opposite party is only the dealer of the manufacturer and can deliver a car to a customer such as the complainant only on receipt of a vehicle from the manufacturer and over which this opposite party has no control and as specified in the terms and conditions contained in the order booking form , there is no merit or basis in the allegation of the complainant that this opposite party had deliberately delayed delivery of a car to  him.  The complainant has no case his priority had been overlooked and a car of his choice was allotted to another customer below him when he was ready and willing to take delivery of the car. The complainant has raised the allegation without any bonafides with ulterior motives and with the intention of misleading this Commission.  These opposite parties are in no way liable  or responsible for the alleged loss stated to have been suffered by the complainant they are in no way liable or responsible to compensate him.

3.       On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the complaint?

3. Reliefs and costs?

4.       Evidence in this complaint consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 on the side of complainant and oral evidence of RW1 on the side of opposite party.

5.       Point No. 1 and 2:-

          PW1 is the complainant. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is the confirmation of accounts regarding the vehicle from 1/4/2022 to 16/2/2023 issued by 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A2 is the preliminary  information sheet showing the total purchase cost of the vehicle as Rs. 9,22,374/-.  Ext.A3 is the receipt dtd. 24/1/2023 issued by 2^nd opposite party for the payment of total amount of Rs. 9,22,374/-.  Ext.A4 is the  copy of registered notice sent to  opposite party. Ext.A5 is the reply of Ext.A4 issued by opposite party.

Rw1 is the Sales Manager of opposite party. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version.

          The allegation of the complainant levelled against the opposite parties is that at the time of taking a booking of an electric car of TATA company from the 1^st opposite party, they did not disclose the  specification and cost of different variant of the  said model car ie, TATA TIAGO.  The complainant further contended that after booking of the vehicle the consumer adviser of the opposite party informed  the complainant regarding the instant delivery scheme of the vehicle  on payment of  full amount. Though the complainant had paid full amount of  the booked vehicle, it was not delivered as assured by the opposite party as there was no such scheme for the company. It is alleged that no confirmation or serial number was informed  to the complainant. In the said circumstance the complainant  enquired about the matter to the electric vehicle  Department of the   company and it was informed that the confirmation was with  the 1^st opposite party and the delivery of the car would be effected during the month of April.  The delivery of the vehicle was effected only on  14/4/2023 after accepting the total amount of the purchase cost of the vehicle and thus cheated the complainant by non compliance of the assurance made by the opposite parties. According to the complainant the opposite parties were  misappropriated the money paid for purchasing the vehicle  without delivery as assured the instant delivery scheme.  Hence this complaint alleging cheating from the part of opposite parties for imposing punishment to the opposite parties in this regard along with compensation to the complainant.

It is admitted the opposite parties that the manufacturers TATA Motors Passenger vehicle  Ltd had intiated bookings for the TATA Tiago EV model cars in 2022, with an initial plan to provide introductory prices for the  first 10,000 and  thereafter extended the said offer to the  first 20,000/- customers due to the remarkable response and high demand from customers. The manufacturer had officially commenced delivery of a limited number of TATA Tiago EV cars only on 3/2/2023, though they had launched the said car on 28/9/2022.

Admittedly the complainant had remitted the entire purchase cost of the  disputed vehicle at the initial stage of its booking.  It is also admitted the opposite parties the introductory offer  of the manufacturer of the disputed vehicle.  However, certainly it is the manufacturer who is not  a party in this case is held answerable  to the matter in dispute. When put a  question regarding the same the PW1 answered that it is not necessary to implicate the manufacturer in this case.  At the same time the PW1 did not know the period of supply of the disputed vehicle to the opposite parties from the manufacturer.  Further it is to be noted that the PW1 had no case for overlooking him for other customers.  It is also admitted the complainant during cross examination by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that it is true that the entire amount had been remitted during January 2023 only for price  protection of the vehicle. Thereafter when put a question like,  “book sNbvX hml\w 2023 April  BWv  Company bn \n¶pw e`n-¨-sX¶pw AXp e`n¨ apdbvIv \n§Ä¡v ssIam-dn-bn-«p-s­¶pw ]d-bp¶p (Q)    Adn-bn-Ã, F\n¡v X¶Xv  April 14  \mWv (A)”

Accordingly we could not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Moreover it cannot be swallow without a pinch of salt the matter regarding non information of specifications of variants  of same model of vehicle especially the  higher valued one  to the customer because the seller of a product would have taken maximum efforts for canvassing a customer for purchasing a higher option products by convincing  them narrating its facilities.  In the said circumstance we could not appreciate the averments in the complaint without any cogent evidence, hence liable to be dismissed.

6.       Point No.3:-

        In the result complaint stands dismissed.  Both parties shall bear their respective costs.

 Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the  22^nd    day of  December, 2023.

                                              Sd/-Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)

         Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                           -           Dr. N.Bahuleyan (complainant)

Ext.A1                       -           Confirmation of accounts

Ext.A2                       -           Preliminary Information Sheet

Ext.A3                       -           Receipt dtd. 24/1/2023

Ext.A4                       -           Copy of registered notice

Ext.A5                       -           Reply  of Ext.A4

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1                          -           Manoj. K. Rajan(witness)

// True Copy //

To        

            Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                                           By Order

                                                                                                                     Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-