DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 24^th day of April, 2024

                          Filed on: 21/05/2022

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                  Member                                                        

CC NO. 258/2022

Between

COMPLAINANT

Sajith P.A., S/o. Asokan P.K., Pulimoottil , Changampuzha Nagar P.O., Unichira, Kochi 682033.

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. TVS Motor Company, Chaithanya, No. 12, Khadar Navas Khan Road, Nungambakkom Chennai 600006.
2. TVS Motor Company Area Office, Kerala, Ambadi Towers, Edappally-Pukkattupadi Road, Edappally Toll, Ernakulam 682024.
3. Rajeev, General manager, SV Motomotives (P) Ltd., 4/582, Palm Towers, Vallathol Junction, Thrikkakkara 682021.

FINAL ORDER

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had booked a TVS NTORQ 125 Super Squad Edition Scooter through the website of the TVS Motor Company on 26/02/2022 and had paid Rs.5,000/- as advance towards booking to the opposite party. Later the complainant had contacted the customer care of the TVS Company and had requested to change the dealership from Cochin TVS to SVTVS. The customer care officials informed the complainant that “if the vehicle is booked at the website of the TVS Company the complainant can buy the vehicle from any dealers of the TVS Company”. The complainant had informed this matter to the Sales Executive of the STVS on 03/03/2022.  HHe agreed to give the vehicle to the complainant as per the booking done by the complainant on 26/02/2022. Accordingly the complainant had paid Rs.1,06,300/- for the vehicle (after deducting Rs.5,000/- from the total amount of Rs.1,11,300/-). Immediately after the payment the sales executive told to the complainant that they will not be able to do the registration of the vehicle and other formalities with the existing booking amount. The complainant was advised to pay Rs.5,000/- also for doing the processes for the registration of the vehicle. The complainant contacted the customer care wing of the opposite party for cancelling the earlier booking. They told that the complainant should sent an e-mail to the TVS Company for cancelling the booking done on 26/02/2022. The complainant had sent an e-mail to the opposite party on 03/03/2022 itself requesting to cancel the earlier booking done by the complainant on 26/02/2022. Another e-mail was also sent to the General Manager of the 1^st opposite party narrating all the facts. The opposite party had replied to the complainant through e-mail that ‘we will get back to you shortly’. The complainant had wanted for the refund but the opposite party had not refunded the amount. Hence the complainant had sent another e-mail on 29/04/2022 to the opposite party stating that the complainant has no way other than moving through the Consumer Court for getting the refund. The complainant states that eventhough the Company had provided booking facility at their website in connection with booking of the vehicle but no facility provided by the opposite party to cancel the booking of the vehicle at their online portal. The complainant also states that deficiency of service occurred from the part of the opposite party towards the complainant since they have not refunded the booking amount to the complainant inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant. Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking the redressal of his grievances and to get orders directing the opposite party to (1) provide cancellation facility for the public in the website of the opposite party itself if they had done the booking of the vehicle through online (2) refund Rs.5,000/- along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. (3) to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of proceedings to the complainant.

2. Notice :

Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 01/10/2022. The opposite parties 1 to 3 acknowledged the notice sent  from this Commission. 1^st opposite party accepted notice on 11/10/2022. 2^nd opposite party also served on 11/10/2022. 3^rd opposite party acknowledged notice on 02/10/2022. Opposite parties not appeared before the Commission and due to the non-filing of version by the opposite parties within the statutory time they were set as ex-parte and the case was posted for the evidence of the complainant to 16/12/2022 and then adjourned to 13/02/2023.

3. Evidence:

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A12.

Heard he complainant.

4. Issues taken for consideration in this case are as follows:

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of opposite parties towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and compensation?

For the sake of convenience, we have considered issue No. 1 and 2 together.

We have verified the facts of the case with the evidence filed by the complainant. Exbt. A1 is the booking confirmation details regarding the purchase of the vehicle TVS MTRQ125, Exbt. A2 is the receipt for Rs.1,06,300/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant, Exbt. A3 is the receipt for Rs.5,000/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 03/03/2022, Exbt. A4 is the copy of e-mail communications made by the complainant and the opposite party dated 03/03/2022.  Exbt. A5 is the copy of    e-mail sent by the opposite party to the complainant on 12/03/2022, Exbt. A6 is the copy of e-mail sent by the complainant to the opposite party on 29.04.2022.  Exbt. A7 is registration details of the vehicle, Exbt. A8 is the tax invoice for Rs.94,638/-, Exbt. A9 is the receipt of Rs.9,463/-, tax paid for the vehicle for the period from 03/03/2022 to 31/12/2036, Exbt. A10 is the insurance details of the vehicle, Exbt. A11 is the account statement of the complainant’s SB account maintained by the complainant at ICICI Bank, Edappally Branch for the period from 01/02/2022 to 28/02/2022 and Exbt. A12 is the account statement details for the period from 01/03/2022 to 31/03/2022.

The case of the complainant is that he had booked NTORQ vehicle on 26/02/2022 with Cochin TVS and an amount of Rs.5,000/- paid as advance towards the purchase of the vehicle. The complainant decided to change the dealership from Cochin TVS to SVTVS which is nearest to the complainant’s house. The customer care wing of the opposite party are not aware to solve the problem ie. cancellation of the booking done by the complainant from the earlier dealer. The complainant had booked and purchased the same vehicle from SVTVS on 03/03/2022. So the complainant wanted to cancel the previous booking and to get the amount as soon as possible. Inspite of repeated requests made the opposite party had not refunded the amount.

In this complaint the complainant alleges that he could not cancel the previous booking made by the complainant through the website of the opposite party since no facilities were provided by the opposite party to cancel the booking in the website of the opposite party eventhough they had provided facilities for booking of the vehicle. It is evident from Exbt. A1 that the complainant had paid Rs.5,000/- on 26/02/2022 to Cochin Motors for booking the vehicle. On 03/03/2022 he had paid another Rs.5,000/- to the opposite party ie. SV Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Thrikkakara as advance (Ref. No. 3320) for booking the same vehicle, TVS Ntorq 125, Super Squad Edition. Exbt. A4, A5 and A6 reveals that he had requested the opposite party to refund Rs.5,000/- towards the previous booking. As per Exbt. A6, the opposite party had replied to the complainant that ‘we will respond at the earliest’. Evenafter repeated requests made by the complainant the opposite party had not refunded the advance amount towards the previous booking made by the complainant at the TVS Motors.

The complainant elaborately stated in his complaint that he had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships etc. due to the deficient acts of the opposite party. On going through the complaint and the proof affidavit filed by the complaint it is clearly explained that deficiency in service occurred from the side of the opposite parties towards the complainant. Based on the e-mail communications made by the complainant and the opposite parties we are of the opinion that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service towards the complainant.

The Commission have also noticed that even after getting notice from this Commission the opposite parties are not interested to file their version and to adduce evidence or to contest the case. This is an act of admission from their side substantiating the allegations raised by the complainant. Since the opposite parties failed to file their written version before the Commission, the complainant’s claim remains unchallenged. As per established legal principles, the absence of a response from the opposite parties is tantamount to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. The Hon’ble National Commission has held a similar stance in its order cited (4) CPR Page 590 (NC). Therefore the complainant is entitled to the relief sought including compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service. In light of the above findings the cost of proceedings are also to be borne by the opposite parties.

We find that issues 1 and 2 are in favour of the complainant and hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence the complaint is allowed and the following orders are hereby passed.

1. The opposite parties shall refund Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant for the deficiency in service occurred from the side of the opposite parties towards the complainant.
3. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
4. The liability of the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally.

The opposite parties are liable for the above mentioned directions. They must comply the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If they fail to do so, the amounts ordered in Point I1) and (2) above will attract interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 24^th day of April, 2024.

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

D.B.Binu, President

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s evidence

Exhibit A1: Booking confirmation details regarding the purchase of vehicle TVS MTRQ125

Exhibit A2: Receipt for Rs.1,06,300/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant

Exhibit A3: Receipt for Rs.5,000/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 03/03/2022

Exhibit A4:    Copy of e-mails communications made by the complainant and the opposite party dated 03/03/2022

Exhibit A5: Copy of e-mail sent by the opposite party to the complainant on 12/03/2022

Exhibit A6:           Copy of e-mail sent by the complainant to the opposite party

Exhibit A7: Registration details of the vehicle

Exhibit A8: Tax invoice for Rs.94,638/-,

Exhibit A9: Receipt of Rs.9,463/-,

Exhibit A10:           Insurance details of the vehicle

Exhibit A11: Account statement details of the complainant’s SB account

Exhibit A12:  Account statement details for the period from 01/03/2022 to 31/03/2022

Opposite party’s evidence

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 258/2022

Order Date: 24/04/2023