Date of Filing: 06/06/2011
Date of Order: 16/07/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 16th DAY OF JULY 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 1033 OF 2011
Sri. Jayasimha Venkate Gowda,
S/o. Venkate Gowda,
R/at: # 190, Behind Mosque,
Ashwathnagar,
BANGALORE-560 094.
(Rep. by Advocate Sri. Harish H.V) Complainant.
-V/s-
The Managing Director,
Trident Automobiles (p) Ltd.,
No.1, Lower Palace Orchards,
Bangalore-560 003.
(Rep. by Advocate Kruthine Law Chambers). Opposite party.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.9,82,450/-, are necessary:-
The complainant had booked a Hyundai diesel car (i20) on 25.04.2011 with the opposite party and he had paid Rs.25,000/-. The financial assistance of Rs.4,47,450/- was sanctioned by HDFC Bank and it was given to the opposite party on 27.04.2011. The complainant had paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 30.04.2011 and paid another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 25.04.2011, that is in all he paid Rs.7,72,450/- to opposite party. The opposite party has agreed to deliver the vehicle on 06.05.2011, as the same was very auspicious day for the complainant. On 05.05.2011 the complainant approached the opposite party wherein he was informed that the vehicle would not be delivered on 06.05.2011 and this is deficiency in service and cheating. Hence a notice was issued to the opposite party on 16.05.2011 to which an untenable reply was issued. The complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.7,72,450/-, Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs. Hence the complaint.
2. In brief the version of the opposite party are:-
The matter requires elaborate examination of various aspects. The allegation does not come within the ambit and scope of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The complainant has booked the car on 25.04.2011. On 05.05.2011 the opposite party wrote to the complainant and also communicated stating that their inability to deliver the car on the next day since they have not received the same from the manufacturer. Without knowledge of the opposite party the complainant has changed the dealer from opposite party to Adavith Automobiles. After changing the dealer, the HDFC Bank on 09.05.2011 requested the opposite party to disburse the loan amount which was sanctioned by them to the complainant. Immediately on the very next day the opposite party had given back and released the loan amount of Rs.4,47,450/- through a cheque No. 014434 dated: 10.06.2011 drawn on HDFC Bank. After returning the amount to Adavith Automobiles the complainant has taken the car from the Adavith Automobiles. The complainant has not made any submission nor any correspondence stating that he has cancelled the booking nor made any communication seeking returning of the booking amount.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their affidavits and written arguments.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service?
- What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A) : In the Negative
Point (B) : As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) & (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record both oral and documentary, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had booked a Hyundai diesel car (I 20) with the opposite party on 25.04.2011. The order form reads thus:-
That is to say that the complainant has stated that he will get the financial assistance from the HDFC Bank Limited and it is assured that the vehicle would be delivered on 06.05.2011 with a warranty of three years and after amount is released, that’s all.
7. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has paid Rs.1,00,000/ on 25.04.2011 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 13.04.2011 that is he has paid Rs.3,25,000/- to the opposite party. Further it is an admitted fact that the HDFC Bank has released a loan of Rs.4,47,450/- to the complainant and released the amount to the opposite party on 27.04.2011.
8. It is also an admitted fact that on 05.05.2011 when the complainant approached the opposite party wherein he was informed that the vehicle was not received from the manufacturer, hence they could not deliver the vehicle to the complainant on 06.05.2011. That means it is not because of any deficiency in service the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant, it is because of vis.manjor, the manufacturer has not delivered the vehicle to the opposite party, hence they could not deliver the vehicle to the complainant.
9. In this regard the opposite party on 07.05.2011 has delivered a letter to the complainant in-person. The said letter reads thus:-
“We regret to inform you that we still haven’t received your 120 CRDI Sparkle blue from the manufacturer. Because of the same we were unable to deliver your car as per schedule on 6th May. The same has been communicated to you on 5th May. We are likely to get the car by 14th May.”
That means the opposite party informed the complainant that they will deliver the vehicle to the complainant within 14.05.2011. This was suppressed by the complainant. Without answering this letter the complainant approached the HDFC Bank to change the dealer and requested the HDFC Bank to take back the money from the opposite party and give it to Adavit Automobiles and the HDFC Bank sent an e-mail to the opposite party on 09.05.2011 and requested to send the amount to Adavit Automobiles. The complainant has changed the dealer from the opposite party to the said Adavit Automobiles. Accordingly the opposite party has issued the cheque bearing No.014434 dated: 10.06.2011 and it sent to the Adavit Automobiles. This complaint is filed on 06.06.2011 before the Forum, but this complaint came before this Forum on 14.06.2011 for the first time on which date we ordered issue of notice; before that date itself the amount has been sent to the Adavit Automobiles and from the Adavit the complainant took delivery of the vehicle. The complainant could have waited for delivery of the vehicle from the opposite party itself. But he changed the dealer and took delivery from another person. Heaven would not have fallen if the complainant waited from the opposite party and take delivery that he has not done. He has changed the dealer and took the same vehicle from another dealer. This is an ego problem and nothing else.
10. Anyway the complainant has sought refund of the whole amount but however in the affidavit he admits that balance of Rs.3,95,000/- is to be paid to him. Anyway as complainant has purchased the same car from the another dealer the opposite party had to return Rs.3,25,000/-. The complainant is not entitled to any interest on this amount, in the sense, it is his own ego which caused the opposite party, not to deliver the vehicle. However if the amount is returned within a particular day then the opposite party need not pay interest otherwise for carrying others money they are bound to pay interest. Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly, and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.3,25,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order. Failing which it shall pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 25.04.2011 until payment within 60 days.
3. The opposite party is also directed to pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation.
4. The opposite party is directed to send the amounts as ordered at Serial Nos.2 & 3 above through DD by registered post acknowledgment due to the complainant and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 16th Day of July 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
