BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 460/2012 Filed on 20.12.2012

ORDER DATED: 26.08.2015

Complainant:

Rose Kumari, Rose House, Maryland, Chadayavilakam, Parasuvaikkal P.O

                                      (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. T.V.S. Sun Motors, Moonukallinmoodu, Neyyattinkara.

(By Adv. K. Kumari Jaya)

2. T.V.S. Credit Services Ltd., Jayalakshmi Estates, Haddows Road, Chennai.

        (By Adv. Sreeja Sasidharan)

This C.C having been heard on 30.06.2015, the Forum on 26.08.2015 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR:  MEMBER

Rose Kumari, Rose House, Parasuvaikkal P.O is the complainant.  T.V.S Sun Motors, Neyyattinkara is the 1^st opposite party and T.V.S Credit Services, Chennai is the 2^nd opposite party.  The case of the complainant is that she booked a TVS Wego on 01.11.2012 with 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs. 11,000/-.  Further she paid an amount of Rs. 11,800/- on 07.11.2012 towards the down payment for the above said vehicle.  The 1^st opposite party promised to deliver the vehicle within 3 days, but she got the vehicle only on 28.12.2012.  Before this period the loan was sanctioned by the 2^nd opposite party and she was forced to pay the first installment before receiving the vehicle.  Thus there occurred a delay of 58 days in delivering the booked vehicle.  So she prays for refund of the extra amount paid by her along with cost and compensation. 

1^st opposite party filed version contending as follows:  It is true that complainant on 01.01.2012 booked a TVS Wego Scooter of the Sun Motors, but she paid only Rs. 1,000/- as booking amount.  After that she remitted Rs. 11,800/- on 07.11.2012 as down payment.  On 14.11.2012 as per the selection and choice of the complainant 1^st opposite party released a TVS red colour Wego Scooter to the complainant.  As per the rule of the Motor Vehicles Act, registration must be done within 30 days after releasing the vehicle and temporary registration.  Otherwise prescribed penalty is to be paid.  But the complainant produced the vehicle for permanent registration only on 28.12.2012, i.e; after 44 days from temporary registration.  On 21.11.2012 1^st opposite party sent message to the complainant asking her to produce the vehicle for permanent registration.  Again on 27.11.2012 she was contacted through telephone, but she did not produce the vehicle.  So it is due to her irresponsibility and negligence she was forced to pay the penalty for the permanent registration.  There is no latches, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the 1^st opposite party.  Moreover the complainant alleged that she paid Rs. 100/- for National Savings and Rs. 130/- for additional fittings.   But all these things are essential for getting permanent registration of the vehicle.  1^st opposite party has not threatened the complainant at any time.  1^st opposite party acted according to rules and no deficiency is there on the part of the 1^st opposite party. 

2^nd opposite party contends as follows: There is no transaction between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party on 01.11.2012 and 07.11.2012 as alleged.  2^nd opposite party and the present complainant entered into an agreement for hypothecation and the same was dated 14.11.2012.  As the standing instruction and the loan statement complainant has to pay first EMI on 07.12.2012.  The allegation of the complainant that on 28.12.2012 only the complainant got the vehicle registered which shows that it is only due to the negligence on the part of the complainant.  It is the complainant to get the financed vehicle registered in her name.  She is duty bound to get the vehicle registered in her name immediately after getting financial assistance.  Complainant stated that she remitted a fine of Rs. 2,160/- but not stated for what purpose she had remitted the said amount.  Rs. 130/- was paid for extra fittings and that too for her personal convenience.  As per the knowledge of the 2^nd opposite party National Saving Certificate was taken for the purpose of registration of the vehicle.  The other head of Rs. 50/- is not narrated.  It is the complainant to prove that there is 58 days delay in getting the vehicle.  Complainant has not paid the first installment of loan to the 2^nd opposite party till this date and hence she may be directed to pay the amount immediately.  So they prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to the 2^nd opposite party. 

Points raised for trial are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
2. If so, reliefs and costs if any?

Complainant filed affidavit along with 3 documents.  She has been cross examined as PW1.  2^nd opposite party filed affidavit along with 7 documents which were marked as Exts. D1 to D7.  1^st opposite party also filed affidavit along with documents which were not marked.  So it is not taken into consideration.

Points (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that after accepting the booking amount the vehicle was delivered to her after a lapse of 58 days.  1^st opposite party dealer contends that she booked the vehicle by paying Rs. 1,000/- and the vehicle was delivered to her within the time limit.  It is due to the negligence on the side of the complainant that she was forced to pay fine for permanent registration.  On going through the complaint it is a vague one.  She is claiming refund of the additional amount, but we are not getting a clear picture of the total cost of the vehicle.  There is dispute regarding the amount paid towards booking by the complainant with the 1^st opposite party.  This fact came out at the later stage of evidence.  But complainant is keeping mum on this point in the complaint.  Vaguely she prays for refund of fine and the amount she paid towards extra fitting, National Savings Certificate and Rs. 50/- is claimed without heading.  Altogether she claims for Rs. 30,000/- as compensation.  No specific relief is prayed from the 2^nd opposite party.  So the complaint itself is vague and filed on an experimental basis.  Nothing is there in the complaint to decide on the question of deficiency on the side of opposite parties.  So the only option left before us is to dismiss the complaint. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed.     

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 26^th day of August 2015.

                                                                                      Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER 

            Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                    : PRESIDENT

            Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 460/2012

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Rose Kumari. Y.R

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Booking amount receipt No. 824 dated 01.11.2012 issued by 1^st O.P

P2     - Booking amount receipt No. 835 dated 07.11.2012 issued by 1^st O.P

P3     - Copy of statement of account (2 pages)

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

D1     - Copy of auto debit mandate form dated 08.11.2012.

D2     - Copy of loan application form

D3     - Copy of loan cum hypothecation agreement.

D4     - Copy of demand promissory note dated 14.11.2012

D5     - Letter dated 16.10.2013 issued by 2^nd opposite party.

D6     - Copy of receipt No. 113/12 dated 08.11.2012 issued by 1^st O.P

D7     - Copy of proforma invoice dated 08.11.2012 issued by 1^st O.P.

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb