Date of Filing: 20-04-2019

                                                                                   Date of Order: 27-08 -2020

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

   HON’BLE  Sri  P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT

HON’BLE Sri  K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER

Thursday, the  27^th  day of August, 2020

C.C.No.154 /2019

Between

Janakiram K, S/o. K.Ganapathi

Aged about 32 years, Occ: Army,

R/o.H.No.2-77/4, Main  Road,

Mamidipally Village, Makloor Mandal

Nizamabad District                                                                   ……Complainant

And

1. Concorde Motors (India) Limited,

Rep. by its authorized Signatory,

# Ground Floor, Golden Edifice,

Opp: Visweswarayya Statue

Khairatabad Circle, Hyderabad,

Telangana – 500004

2. TATA Motors Ltd.,

Rep. by its authorized Signatory,

4^th floor, Ahura Centre

82 Mahakali Caves Road,

MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400093                  ….Opposite Parties

Counsel for the complainant                     :  Party in person

Counsel for the opposite Party No.1         :  Ex-parte

                          Opposite party No.2        :  M/s. MVR. Suresh & Associates

O R D E R

(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)

            This complaint has  been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986  with    the allegation  that opposite parties have caused  unfair trade practice  by collecting  excess amount  for the car purchased by the complainant.   

1. Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased TATA TIAGO XZ   vehicle  manufactured  by  opposite party No.2 company from the opposite party No.1 who is the dealer of the vehicle  being manufactured by opposite party No.2 on 3-11-2018 and paid a total sum of Rs.5,19,999/-.  Out of the above said amount complainant availed loan of Rs.4,00,000/-. There was an excess payment of Rs.40,000/- by the complainant  to opposite party No.1.  After  collecting delivery of the vehicle  complainant requested the opposite party No.1 on several occasions  for refund of the  excess amount of Rs.40,000/- and opposite party No.1 inturn sent  replies by mail stating that it will update the status  as soon as possible  for refund of Rs.40,000/- but both opposite  parties  have not refunded the  amount.  Complainant received a mail on 19-4-2019 from opposite party No.2 stating that  as per records  there is no excess amount.  Complainant being a defense  employ  is entitled for subsidy  for the purchase of the vehicle but the opposite parties  intentionally  have not provided  subsidy  even after lapse of 5 months from the date of the   purchase of  the subject vehicle and it amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the present complaint. 
2. Opposite party No.1 remained exparty and opposite party No.2 alone filed written version  denying the allegation of unfair trade practice  and  deficiency of service  on its part. 

            The essence of the  contest of opposite party No.2 is that it is  only manufacturer of cars and  utility vehicles and it  engages its dealers and  Opposite party no.1 is  one  such  dealer  and  it will supply  the vehicles  as on a principal to principal basis  for onwards  sale to the  customers.  Opposite party No.2 as a  manufacturer  does not deal with any customer  for  sale  of   the  new car or vehicle hence it cannot  comment  on what transpired  between  the complainant and opposite party No.1  dealer.  The subject car was  purchased by complainant under a bi-partite  contract solely  executed between  himself and opposite party No.1 and there exists  no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.2 manufacturer in respect of the sale of the car in question  to the complainant.  Hence there cannot be   any nexus   between the alleged grievances pertaining to the sale of  the car  as against the opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.2 cannot  be held  responsible or liable for any act or omission committed by the opposite party No.1hence, no relief can be granted to complainant against  the opposite party No.2.

        In the enquiry  the  complainant has  got  filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the facts  narrated in the complaint and  to support the same got exhibited  eight  (8) documents. For  Opposite Party No.2 its Sr. Manager –Legal   got filed  evidence affidavit and the substance of the same is in line with the stand taken  in the written version filed for it.  No document is exhibited  for opposite party No.2.   Both sides have filed written arguments and for complainant oral submissions were  also made. 

            On a consideration of material available on record the following points have emerged for consideration .        

1. Whether the complainant could make out case of either  unfair trade practice  or  deficiency of service  on the part of the  opposite parties ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the  relief  refund of Rs.40,000/- and compensation ?
3. To what relief?

Point No.1:  Ex.A1 invoice receipts evidences receipt of Rs.65,000/- by opposite party No.1 from Canteen Store  Department  of Defense  on 3-11-2018.  Ex.A2 is the cash receipt for Rs.40,000/- as balance amount for the vehicle  bought by  the complainant.  These two documents fortifies   the complainant’s claim   purchase of the vehicle manufactured by  opposite party No.2 company  from its dealer opposite party No.1.  The complainant’s claim is being a defense employee is entitled for the subsidy of Rs.40,000/-.  It is evident from Ex.A1 that an amount of Rs.65,000/- was  remitted by Canteen Store Department  of  the Defense with  which the complainant  is employed.  So no further proof is required to show that the complainant is an Army man.  The complainant’s version is since excess amount is collected by  opposite party No.1  he corresponded with  opposite party No.1 for refund of the same  and Ex.A3 is  email correspondence  received by the complainant  from opposite party No.1 and subject  referred is excess amount refund.  In this email opposite party No.1 expressed regrets for delay happened in return of the excess amount to the complainant and tendered  apology  for causing inconvenience to the complainant.  The reasons assigned for the delay for refunding the excess amount is there are some formalities and complainant was requested to furnish receipts for the payment made by him along with CSD invoice for conformation of the amount which has been transferred to the account of the dealer.  Another email  from  opposite party No.1 to the  complainant  dated 19-4-2019 and by this complainant was informed  that  opposite  party  was updating the states and  as soon as possible it will  refund the  excess amount.  In this mail also opposite party No.1 tendered apology to the complainant for causing delay in refunding the amount.  In the light of the admission made by opposite party No.1 in the Ex.A3 email  no further proof  is required to the complainant to substantiate that the opposite party No.1 having collected the  excess amount failed to refund it.  Refused to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant despite requests from him amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite  party No.1.   Accordingly point is answered in favour of the complainant. 

Point No.2: As rightly  contended by opposite party No.2 being a manufacturer its  contract is with  opposite party No.1 as a dealer  for  sale of  the vehicle  and  it is the job of opposite party No.1 to sell the vehicles  to the user  of the same  and  there is no  privity  of contract  between the complainant  as a purchaser and opposite party No.2 as a manufacturer of the  vehicle and  it is the  sole responsibility  of the opposite party No.1 who collected the excess amount  from complainant  to refund  the same.

                  In view of  the above findings  it is  to follow that  opposite party No.1 caused deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice to the complainant hence complainant is entitled  for refund of Rs.40,000/- with interest and by not refunding the  amount  and making the complainant  approach this Forum  the opposite  party has caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant hence opposite party No.1 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.    Accordingly point is answered. 

Point No.3: In the result, the complaint of the complainant is allowed in part  directing the opposite  party No.1

1. To refund  to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 9% P.A from the date of purchase to the date of payment
2. To pay  a sum  of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant  
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this complaint

Complaint against the opposite party No.2 is dismissed. 

Time for compliance : 30 days from the date of service of this order

                        Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced  by us on this the  27^th   day of   August, 2020.

 MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For complainant

Mr. K. Janakiram (PW1)

For opposite party No.2

Mr. G.S.Arjun kumar (DW1)

Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1- payment receipt of amount

Ex.A2- Cash denomination slip issued by  opposite party No.1

Ex.A3- Copies of email transactions between the complainant opposite  party

Ex.A4-  Tax Invoice

Ex.A5- call list

Ex.A6-voice recording

Ex.A7-Canteen Stores Department  bill of supply

Ex.A8- Canteen stores letter to RTO, Telangana State

Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party

                                    -Nil-  

 MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT