IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of October, 2016
Filed on 03.11.2012
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.379/2012
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. Nidal Siraj The Sales Manager
Rose House, Panoor Muri Popular Mega Motors (India)
Pallana P.O., Thrukkunnappuzha Ltd., Alappuzha
Village, Karthikappally Taluk (By Adv. P.V. Satheesh)
(By Adv. Hameed Mathalasseril)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant had purchased LP 71238 Model Chasis from the opposite party on 27.04.2012. While booking the said vehicle he had requested to get the LP 712/38 Model Chasis with power assisted steering. The opposite party had accepted his request had given assurance to deliver the said vehicle with power assisted steering. As per the information given by the opposite party, on 27.4.2012 the complainant reached at Three Star Body Workshop at Ernakulam for receiving the vehicle, but he noticed that the steering is mechanical steering. So he refused to received the Chasis. But on the basis of the assurance given by the opposite party that necessary steps will be taken to install the power steering in the Chasis and full expense had been met by the opposite party, the complainant received the Chasis after giving a written objection in the delivery note. But the opposite party had not taken any steps for installing the power assisted steering, even though complainant complained about it to the opposite party, so far no result. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant never booked LP 712/38 Model Chasis with power assisted steering through the opposite party, but booked only LP 712/38 Model Chasis with mechanical steering. The opposite party had acted upon the booking of the complainant had delivered the Chasis at the body building workshop as demanded. There is no agreement or promise between the complainant and opposite party regarding price of Chasis with the power steering as claimed who had only delivered the Chasis booked by the complainant, for the price fixed by the manufacturer at the place on request of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A7. Opposite party was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B4.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant had booked LP712/38 Model Chasis with the opposite party. According to the complainant he had booked LP712/38 Model Chasis with power assisted steering and opposite party had given assurance to deliver the LP712/38 Model Chasis with power assisted steering. On 27.4.2012 as per the information given by the opposite party complainant purchased the vehicle by giving the full amount and while he verified the Chasis, he noticed that the steering is mechanical steering. So he refused to receive the said Chasis and raised some objection and only on the basis of the assurance given by the opposite party that necessary steps would be taken for installing the power assisted steering in the said Chasis, he had received the Chasis. According to the complainant while he receiving the Chasis, in the delivery note he recorded his objection. Opposite party filed version stating that the complainant never booked LP712/38 Model Chasis with power assisted steering, but booked only LP712/38 Chasis with mechanical steering. Ext.A1 is the customer order form. Ext.A2 and Ext.A3 are the documents stating the details and peculiarities of LP712/38 Model Chasis. Ext.A4 is the delivery note dated 27.4.2012. On verifying the Ext.A4 delivery note we came to see that complainant had recorded that “received the Chasis with mechanical steering against my order of power based steering.” From Ext.A4 delivery note it is clear that complainant had booked Chasis with power based steering and the opposite party delivered the Chasis with mechanical steering. According to the opposite party, complainant had not booked the Chasis with power assisted steering. But while cross examining the opposite party, he admitted that they did not give brochure to the complainant. But from Exts.A2 and A3 it is clear that the peculiarity of the steering of LP712/38 Model Chasis is power assisted steering. The opposite party produced a brochure after the evidence and hearing, but marking the said document is opposed by the complainant. It is pertinent to notice that during the year 2012 when the vehicle was delivered to the complainant, it is admitted by the opposite party that they have not given brochure of the vehicle to the complainant. But the Exts.A2 and A3 shows that the LP712/38 Chasis has power assisted steering. The brochure produced by the opposite party is for the year 2016. Whether the brochure produced by the opposite party relates to the Model LP712/38 of 2012 is not proved by the opposite party. Needless to say that the specifications of the vehicle will vary from brand to brand, model to model and also entire model and intra model. The brochure produced by the opposite party shows that during the year 2016 LP712/38 E BSIII has variable steering. But Exts.A2 and A3 dated 5.2.2012 show that model name LP712/38 has steering like power assisted steering. From the above evidence on record, it is clear that opposite party delivered the Chasis LP712/38 against the order of the complainant. The failure on the part of the opposite party
in delivering the vehicle with power assisted steering as per the order of the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to install the power assisted steering in the Chasis LP712/38 at free of cost. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of October, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Sri.Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - A. Siraj (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Customer Order form (Tata)
Ext.A2 - Copy of the details of LP712/38 Chasis from the website
Ext.A3 - Copy of the details of other portions of LP712/38 from the website
Ext.A4 - Delivery note
Ext.A5 - Legal notice dated 15.6.2012
Ext.A6 - Postal receipt
Ext.A7 - Acknowledgement card
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Subash A. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the proforma invoice dated 17.4.2012
Ext.B2 - Copy of the tax invoice
Ext.B3 - Copy of the Sale Certificate dated 26.4.2012
Ext.B4 - Copy of the vehicle data sheet
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
