D.O.F:01/01/2021
D.O.O:28/04/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.2/2021
Dated this, the 28th day of April 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Lakshmi, aged 45 years,
W/o Rajan,
Weavers Colony,
RamdasNagar, : Complainant
Madhur, Ramdas Nagar,
Kudlu, Kasaragod,
Kerala – 671124
(Adv. Suresh.K.P)
And
- Zain Bajaj,
Zain Arcade,
Near Chandragiri Bridge,
Kasaragod, Kerala- 671121
(Adv. Babuchandran.K)
- The Bajaj Finance Limited, : Opposite Party
- th floor, manjooran Estate
Cheranallur Road,
Bye Pass Junction,
Edappally, Cochin,
Ernakulam- 682024
(Adv. UdayaKumar.R)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The Complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act
The case of the complaint is that Complainant decided to purchase Bajaj Motor Cycle for the use of her son Mr.Prajwal. She booked the bike model CT 110 by payment of Rs.500/- as per cash receipt No.502 dated 24/11/2020. At that time the Opposite Party informed that the showroom price for the said Bajaj Motor Cycle model CT 110 is Rs.62,329/- Registration cost including road tax Rs.7,990/- for insurance Rs.5,319/- and over all the on road price will be Rs.75,638/-. On 05/12/2020 the 1st Opposite Party issued five year warranty card to the complainant and in this warranty letter 1st Opposite Party mentioned model of the bike as CT 110. On 18/12/2020 son of Complainant paid Rs.2,500/- being the initial payment as per the cash receipt No.607 dated 18/12/2020 and remaining balance amount is paid by the complainant as per cash receipt No.645 dated 24/12/2020 for Rs.19,815/-. So the total sum of Rs.22,815/-
The Complainant availed loan of Rs.57,000/- from 2nd Opposite Party that is Bajaj Finance Ltd for the purchase of the said bike. So the Complainant spent a total sum of Rs.79,815/- for the bike the Complainant is liable to pay EMI at Rs.2,204/- to second Opposite Party on 24/12/2020 the Opposite Party No.1 delivered Bajaj CT 100 instead of Bajaj CT 110 Motor Bike and issued the owner’s manual. At the time of delivery of the bike Complainant and her son questioned same and at that time officials of Opposite Party No.1 threatened the Complainant that you booked this CT 100 and not CT 110. Temporary registration is already done, if not taken the bike they will release the same to third party and you will get back the payment made by the Complainant, on hearing those words son took the bike and now it was kept in the house of the Complainant. Thereafter the Opposite Party’s has taken a very adamant attitude against the Complainant and her son. The Complainant purchased the vehicle for the sake of her son’s eking his lively hood. The vehicle is kept idle at the residence of the Complainant. It will cause heavy loss to the Complainant by depreciation of market price day by day. Due to that there is deficiency in service and by Opposite Party. The Complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony. Sought compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
The Opposite Party No.1 filed written version denying the allegations Complainant paid price of model CT100 ES and not that of model CT110. Amount is paid Rs.75,630/- bike delivered is CT100 ES delivery is not for Bajaj CT110. There is no deficiency in service and complaint is to be dismissed.
The Complainant filed chief affidavit. Documents Ext.A1 to A5 marked Ext.A1 and A2 are cash receipt, Ext.A3 is also another cash receipt. Ext.A4 is warranty card and Ext.A5 is vehicle battery warranty.
IA 03/2021 is filed by Complainant to direct Opposite Party No.1 to receive back CT100 and to replace it with CT110. IA dismissed as per order dated 08/03/2021.
Considering rival contentions following issues arise for consideration.
- Whether Opposite Party No.1 is really delivered wrong model CT100 instead of CT110 to the Complainant against terms of booking
- Whether there is any deficiency in service of the Opposite party and whether Complainant is entitled for compensation? For what reliefs?
All points are considered together for consideration
The complainant in her evidence as PW1,deposed that entire transaction is by her son Prajwal. She does not know what transpired after booking of vehicle. She admits that her son still ply and using the vehicle.
Vehicle is delivered on 24/12/2020. Grievance is that instead of CT110 model CT100 ES is delivered price difference is only Rs.175/-
The Son of Complainant who is clossly associated with purchase and usage of vehicle is not examined in the case. The stand taken by Opposite Party is that Complainant and her son selected the model CT100 as blue color choice but after the arrival of CT110 he wanted replacement of that model. But by the time vehicle is already registered in the name of the Complainant and thus replacement is not materialized.
Ext.A1 Cash receipt shows booking is for CT110, Ext.A2 and A3 receipt dated 18/12/2020 shows model as CT100. Ext.A4 warranty card shows model as CT110 but Ext.A5 warranty card shows model CT100 written version shows that Complainant’s son booked CT110. Thereafter stock of blue color CT100 came on 24/12/2020 son selected the model CT100, received delivery, temporary registration is effected and thus no deficiency in service.
Evidence of DW1 Shows booking is done for CT.110. but admits delivery is given not the model booked. He says booking is done for vehicle not available thus Opposite party received amount by booking a vehicle not available then but by the time of delivery, particular booked model is available. But still particular model CT110 is not delivered. But Ext.A4 warranty card shows model CT110 DW1 categorically say Complainant RC owner did not came on the date of delivery and no authorization for the Complainant in whose name RC is registered. Booking is done by one person delivery is given to another person without authorization. Whether every delivery of vehicle is given in the presence of General Manager is quiet un believable. There is no explanation as to why and how. Ext.A4 warranty card shows model CT110 and date of sale is shown as 05/12/2020. Actual delivery of vehicle is on 24/12/2020. Complaint filed is on 01/01/2021 at the earliest point of time. Considering entire facts and circumstances evidence on record, complainant finds that there is deficiency in service and even negligence in the service rendered by Opposite Party No.1 in the matter of receiving booking for one model and delivering another model without obtaining anything on record for change complainant thus entitled to compensation thereof.
The Complainant is using the vehicle for two years so it is not practicable to order replacement of vehicle with model CT110 or refund of price already paid to Opposite Party at this point of time. Prayer for refund of price is thus rejected. The complainant claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation without any justifiable basis, and is found not reasonable. A sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation is found reasonable considering the nature and circumstances of the transaction payable by Opposite Party No.1 with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. The Opposite Party No.2 is exonerated from liability.
In the result complaint is partly allowed the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to complainant as compensation and also to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Cash Receipt dated 24/11/2020
A2: Cash Receipt dated 18/12/2020
A3: Cash Receipt dated 24/12/2020
A4: Warranty Card
A5: Vehicle Battery Warranty Card
Witness Cross examined
PW1: Lakshmi
DW1: Shaji. K
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
