KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 380/2018

JUDGMENT DATED: 21.04.2022

(Against the Order in C.C. 30/2017 of CDRF, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN  K.R.                                       : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Valli Ganesh, House No. 47/463, Thamarassery Road, Kochi-682 038 presently residing at House No. 39/408, Suryakanthi, Sanskrit College Road, Tripunithura.

                                                  (Party in person)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. General Manager, Popular Nexa Buildings, No. 32/1663 D, Opp: to Ernakulam Medical Centre, NH 47, Bye-pass, Palarivattom, Kochi-682 025.

(By Adv. R. Suja Madhav)

2. Peter Iype, Regional Office, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Tutus Tower, NH Byepass, Padivattom, Kochi-682 024.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER

Appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 30/2017 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (District Forum for short) and respondents are the opposite parties.

2. The appellant had purchased a Maruti Baleno car from the 1^st opposite party and her grievances are that there was delay in handing over the vehicle and therefore she had to pay penal interest to her employer from whom she had taken a loan of Rs. 5,50,000/-.  As the vehicle was delivered late she had to pay Rs. 16,654/- by way of penal interest. Therefore, she filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking reimbursement of the said amount from the dealer.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant has failed to prove that there was delay in delivery due to the deliberate act or omission on the part of the opposite parties.  Against the impugned order the complainant has filed this appeal.

3.  Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Maruti Baleno petrol car from the 1^st opposite party on 28.01.2016.  She paid an advance of Rs. 11,000/- on 02.11.2015 and availed a loan of Rs. 5,50,000/- from her employer to buy the car.  As there was no response from the opposite party she had sent an e-mail to the opposite party stating that her employer charged a penal interest of Rs. 16,654/- from her salary since the complainant failed to submit the registration certificate, copy of insurance and other related documents promptly.  She had given a copy of her pay-slip and requested the opposite party to reimburse the penal interest charged by her employer.  The complainant seeks reimbursement of penal interest from the 1^st opposite party dealer.  But there was no response from them.  Hence the complaint. 

4.  Opposite party filed version contending as follows: The complainant is not a consumer as per Sec. 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant had paid an advance of Rs. 11,000/- on 02.11.2015 and Rs. 5,50,000/- was paid through the bank on 15.12.2016.  But she failed to pay Rs. 1,29,299/- being the balance amount of the cost of the vehicle and the statutory remittance like tax, insurance etc.  As per the request of the complainant the opposite party had granted a discount of Rs. 18,415/-.  The 1^st opposite party is not bound to sell the vehicle to the complainant without making the entire payment.  At the time of booking the vehicle the complainant was informed that there would be a waiting period of two months to deliver the vehicle and also the details regarding the payment.  On getting an e-mail communication on 08.01.2016 one of the officers of the opposite party had personally contacted the complainant and convinced her about the falsity of her stand.  The attempt of the complainant is to pressurize the opposite party to heed to her illegal demand and she approached this Forum with ulterior motives.  Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed. 

5.  In this case the complainant and opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence.  Complainant produced six documents which were marked as Ext. A1 to A6.  Opposite parties produced six documents which were marked as Exts. B1 to B6.  Ext. A1 is the tax/vehicle invoice dated 28.01.2016.  As per Ext. A1 ex-showroom price is shown as Rs.6,00,212/-.  Ext.A2 is the letter issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant dated 09.12.2015.  Through this letter the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the delivery of the vehicle will be before 10.01.2016.  Ext. A3 is the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party that the employer of the complainant would charge penalty if the documents relating to the vehicle was not submitted promptly.  The complainant produced Ext. A4 pay details wherein penal interest of vehicle loan of Rs. 16,654/- was deducted from her salary.  Ext. A5 is the notice issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party demanding the penal charges charged by her employer from her salary.  Ext. A6 is the bank receipt dated 16.12.2015 for Rs. 5,50,000/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party.  The complainant had paid Rs. 11,000/- as advance amount on 02.11.2015.

6.  The main contention raised by the opposite party is that the complainant has not paid the full amount before delivery of the vehicle.  The opposite party assured the complainant that they would deliver the vehicle before 10.01.2016.  The complainant has sent letters to the opposite party informing that if she failed to produce documents relating to the vehicle promptly penalty will be charged by her employer.  But the opposite parties did not send any reply regarding the payment of balance amount or the non-availability of the vehicle. 

7.  The complainant in this case booked the vehicle on 02.11.2015.  The vehicle was delivered on 03.02.2016.  The opposite party assured the complainant that the vehicle will be delivered before 09.01.2016.  Accordingly the complainant has arranged the loan from her employer.  Due to the delay in delivery of the vehicle the complainant had to pay Rs. 16,654/- as penalty.  The opposite party has no case that there was non-availability of the vehicle.  They contended that the complainant failed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 14,255/-.  But they never demanded that amount till delivery.  The opposite party never turned up to send a reply to the complainant regarding this payment. The complainant has sent letters to the opposite party regarding her grievances that unless she has produced documents relating to the vehicle before her employer, he would charge penalty.  This act of the 1^st opposite party is clear deficiency in their service.

8.  The finding of the District Forum is that the complainant has failed to prove that there was delay in delivery due to the deliberate act or omission on the part of the opposite parties.  But it is not correct.   The opposite party has not stated or produced any document regarding the reason for the delay.

9.  In these circumstances we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of the 1^st opposite party dealer.  Due to that reason the complainant has suffered much mental agony and financial loss.  So the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 16,654/-, the amount charged by the employer from her and a reasonable amount as compensation and costs.  For the above mentioned reasons, we set aside the order dated 31.10.2017 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam in C.C. No. 30/2017.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is set aside.  The 1^st respondent/1^st opposite party is directed to pay the appellant Rs. 16,654/-, the amount charged by the employer from her and also  Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and litigation expense.  The 1^st respondent shall pay the amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Otherwise, the amount shall carry interest @6% per annum till realization.  No order as to costs.

                         T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNANK.R.   : MEMBER

jb