Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/149/2015

V.Balaji - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Sundaram Motors, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Nathan and Associates

19 Jul 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 30.03.2015

                                                                          Date of Order : 19.07.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.149/2015

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2019

                                 

V. Balaji,

S/o. Mr. R. Venkatesan,

No.1B, Samudra Apartments,

No.44, Kottivakkam Kuppam Road,

Valmiki Nagar,

Tiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                        .. Complainant.                                                 

 

                                                                                          ..Versus..

1. TVS Sundaram Motors,

Represented by its Authorised Signatory,

No.180, Anna Salai Mount Road,

Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 006.

 

2. K. Thiruloga Chander,

Sales Head – VW Mount Road,

TVS Sundaram Motors,

No.180, Anna Salai Mount Road,

Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 006.                                                  ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : M/s. Nathan & Associates

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. Dwarakesh Prabhakaran

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as voluntarily agreed by them and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental torture, mental agony and restlessness with interest at the rate of 24% per annum till the date of payment with cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that the complainant purchased a Volkswagen Vento car on 30.11.2013 for a sum of Rs.9,99,912/- from the opposite parties.    The complainant submits that as a part of sales promotion of the opposite parties, the complainant was offered a cash back offer of Rs.20,000/-.  Accordingly, a cheque dated:17.03.2014 was issued to the complainant for a sum of Rs.19,995/- in the month of April 2014 instead the promised amount of Rs.20,000/-.    The complainant submits that on enquiry with the customer case, the 1^st opposite party replied lethargically that “the company does not have enough funds in its bank account to give in Rs.5/-"; such rude response caused great mental agony to the complainant who is a prospective customer. The complainant submits that once again, the complainant made the opposite party informing the reluctance to accept the cheque for Rs.19,995/- and returned the same to the opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party thereafter offered to sent a fresh cheque for Rs.20,000/- which was also returned.    The complainant submits that the opposite parties has committed deficiency in service by not only settling the grievance of the complainant but also deposited the amount of Rs.20,000/- and the same was withdrawn. The complainant submits that he issued legal notice dated:01.08.2014 to the opposite parties and the same was received by them after which they had sent an email reply denying the said allegations, without even intending to reply to the legal notice.   The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.    Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the 1^st opposite party is a dealer of Volkswagen brand of cars, the 2^nd opposite party is the Sales Head.  The complainant purchased a Volkswagen Vento Car from the opposite parties company on 30.11.2013 for an ex-showroom price of Rs.9,99,912/-.  It is also admitted that the complainant was offered a cash back offer of Rs.20,000/-. Due to unfortunately and inadvertently a cheque for Rs.19,995/- was issued to the complainant drawn by the system deducting Rs.5/- and sent to the complainant.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the complainant came to the showroom and started accusing the opposite party company staffs in various distasteful allegations in addition to hurling abuses.   The Manager of the showroom informed the complainant that the error was totally ruin and regretted and a fresh cheque for Rs.20,000/- will be issued immediately.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the cheque for Rs.20,000/- issued to the complainant also refused. The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the complainant alone made a hue and cry in the showroom of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that there is no cause of action in this case.  The opposite parties are ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as assured.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and document Ex.B1 alone is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cash back offer by the opposite party as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.20,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard their Counsels also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The learned Counsel for the complainant would contend that the complainant purchased a Volkswagen Vento car on 30.11.2013 for a sum of Rs.9,99,912/- as per Ex.A1, Tax Invoice from the opposite parties.   Further the contention of the complainant is that as a part of sales promotion of the opposite parties, the complainant was offered a cash back offer of Rs.20,000/- and it will be sent to the complainant very soon.  Accordingly, a cheque dated:17.03.2014 was issued to the complainant for a sum of Rs.19,995/- in the month of April 2014 as per Ex.A2 instead the promised amount of Rs.20,000/-.   Further the contention of the complainant is that on enquiry with the customer care, the 1^st opposite party replied lethargically that “the company does not have enough funds in its bank account to give in Rs.5/-”; such rude response caused great mental agony to the complainant who is a prospective customer which amounts to deficiency in service.

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that in

STATE COMMISSION OF HYDERABAD

Between

Satyanarayana Minda

-Versus-

Air Deccan & another

Held that

        “That the hardships and rude behaviour of the Respondents shall be held to be deficiency in part of the Respondents”.

Further the contention of the complainant is that once again, the complainant made the opposite party informing the reluctance to accept the cheque for Rs.19,995/- and returned the same to the opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party thereafter offered to sent a fresh cheque for Rs.20,000/- which was also duly returned.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party played unfair trade practice relating to promotional offers has been inducted in Section 2(1)(r) and clause 3 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which reads as follows:

“unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting  the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices namely;

(3) Permits-

(b) the conduct of any contest, lottery, game of chance or skill , for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the sale, use or supply of any product or any business interest; (applicable to the facts).

Hence the current case is a direct hit to clause 3(b) of sec 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act.

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that as per Section 14 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence  of the opposite party (Provided that the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit;).

Hence, there is no legal impediment for awarding suitable compensation for the injury sustained by the complainant logically.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties has committed deficiency in service by not only settling the grievance of the complainant but also deposited the amount of Rs.20,000/- as per Ex.B1 and the same was withdrawn proves the mockery and deceptive attitude of the opposite parties.  Equally, the opposite parties used the terms such as “the company does not have enough fund to give Rs.5/- and this money is bigger for you, don’t weaken yourself by roaming for justice” also portrays the deficiency nature of service provided to the complainant proves the ridicules attitude of the opposite parties. The allegation of refusal of Rs.20,000/- is proved to be false.  Further the contention of the complainant is that throughout the written version and the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party, there is no specific denial of the said ridiculous words used by the opposite parties. 

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the complainant not only as a consumer purchased the goods from the opposite party  but also, for the sale promotion scheme he may be regarded as a consumer as held in

M/s Coco Cola Ltd.

-Versus-

Dr. Amarjit Singh

Held that

“When a person bought a bottle of Coca-Cola in the ordinary course, he would of course be a consumer of that product, with all the attending rights under the Act to file a complaint in respect of quality and quantity of the soft drink (and quality of the bottle), service rendered by the trader / manufacturer in selling the drink, unfair trade practice, if any, adopted by the trader/manufacturer in the process, etc.   However, when the same person bought the same bottle of coca-cola under the promotion scheme, according to the appellant he was debarred from filing any such complainant against the scheme, including one under section 2(1)(r)(3)(b) of the Act, because the scheme was not a service nor the buyer a consumer for he did not have to pay any consideration for participating in the scheme”

Rejecting this contention it was held by the National Commission that:

“The scheme was also run with the aim of promoting the appellants business interest like winning over customers, at least during the period of the scheme, from groups regularly consuming other competing brands of aerated drinks.   More important, the scheme sought to encourage a buyer/ consumer of coca-cola during the scheme hence undoubtedly they must be held as consumers”.

proves that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:01.08.2014 as per Ex.A4 which was duly acknowledged by the opposite parties but has not preferred to sent any reply.   The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cash back offer with a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with cost.

9.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 would contend that the 1^st opposite party is a dealer of Volkswagen brand of cars, the 2^nd opposite party is the Sales Head.  Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Volkswagen Vento Car from the opposite parties company on 30.11.2013 for an ex-showroom price of Rs.9,99,912/-. It is also admitted that the complainant was offered a cash back offer of Rs.20,000/-.   But inadvertently a cheque for Rs.19,995/- was issued to the complainant drawn by the system deducting Rs.5/- and sent to the complainant.  But the opposite parties has not pleaded anything about the commission of 5% equally no document produced to prove the defective system.  On the other hand, it is apparently clear that the cheque was issued to the complainant for a sum of Rs.19,995/- after deducting a sum of Rs.5/-.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant came to the showroom and started accusing the opposite party company staffs in various distasteful allegations  in addition to hurling abuses.  But there is no proof.   On the other hand, the opposite party has not denied the allegation of the complainant that “the company does not have the enough fund to give Rs.5/- and this money is bigger for you don’t weaken yourself by roaming for justice”.  The Manager of the showroom informed the complainant that the error was totally ruin and regretted and a fresh cheque for Rs.20,000/- will be issued immediately.  But the opposite parties has not issued any letter to prove such regret and issuance of cheque immediately.   

10.    Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the cheque for Rs.20,000/- issued to the complainant also refused.  But there is no record.   On the other hand, the paid amount of Rs.20,000/- credited in the account of the complainant is also withdrawn by the opposite parties proves that the opposite parties one way or the other wriggling the matter by false allegation of refusal.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant alone made a hue and cry in the showroom of the opposite parties.  But on a careful perusal of the entire records including written version, proof affidavit and written arguments, there is no denial of the words used by the opposite parties against the complainant.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that there is no cause of action in this case.  The opposite parties are ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as assured.  There is no deficiency in service.  But on careful perusal of the entire records, till date, the opposite parties has not come forward to pay the said amount of Rs.20,000/-.  The alleged reason “the company does not have enough fund to give Rs.5/- “ for the refusal of the cheque for Rs.20,000/-; is not also denied proves the deceptive attitude.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- being cash back offer and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) being cash back offer and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.  

The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 19^th day of July 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	30.11.2013	Copy of tax invoice for purchase
Ex.A2	17.03.2014	Copy of cheque issued to the complainant in lieu of offer
Ex.A3	09.04.2014	Copy of postal cover sent by the opposite party
Ex.A4	01.08.2014	Copy of legal notice sent to the opposite party

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1

Copy of account statement

 

 

                              

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT