IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Tuesday the 28^th  day of February, 2023.

                           Filed on : 17.08.2022

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. Sholy.P.R, B.A.L,LLB (Member)

                                                       In

                                            CC/No.205/2022

between

Complainant:-                                                        Opposite parties:-

Sri.Anandan.S,                                                    1.  Indus Motor Co. Pvt Ltd                                            

Vadachirayil       ,                                                    Old NH 47, GDM Auditorium

Panoor Pallana                                                     Kayamkulam Alappuzha-690502

Thrikkunnapuzha Village                                        Rep by its Manager

 Karthikapally. Taluk    

Alappuzha-690515                                         2.   True Value

(Adv. Remya. M. Sudarsan)                                  Of Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd

                                                                             Old NH 47, GDM Auditorium

                                                                             Kayamkulam, Alappuzha-690502

                                                                             Rep by its Manager

                                                                       3.   Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd

                                                                              Opp. South Gate of Shipyard

                                                                             M.G Road, Cochin 15

                                                                            Rep.by  its Manager

                                                                       (Adv. Suresh Kumar CR for Op.1to 3)

                                                                       4.   Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

                                                                             1. Nelson Mandela Road

                                                                             Vasant Kunju, New Delhi-110070

                                                                             (Adv. Jayan C.Das & Adv.

                                                                              Adv. Anto Thomas Adipuzha)

                                                                       5.   ICICI Bank Ltd,

                                                                             215,Free Press House, Free Press

                                                                             Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbail

                                                                             Maharashtra-400021

                                                                             Rep by its Manager.

                                                                             (Exparte)              

O R D E R

SMT.  SHOLY.P.R(MEMBER)

          This is a consumer complaint filed under Sec.35 of Consumer Protection Act,2019.

1.      Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-

          1^st opposite party is the Maruthi Suzuki showroom in Kayamkulam, 2^nd opposite party is its used car dealer (True value) 3^rd opposite party is the head office of the 1^st opposite party, 4^th opposite party is the Manufacturer of the car and 5^th opposite party is the Bank which the complainant availed car loan.  Since the 5^th granted loan, they are made as a party in the proceedings before this Commission with a view to ascertaining the correct facts and no relief has been sought against the 5^th opposite party.

2.      The complainant approached opposite party No.1 for purchasing a car (Wagon R VXI (o) AGS 1.2 L BS-VI M) of Rs.6,46,167/- (on road price through CSD) accordingly the opposite party No.1 booked the car on behalf of the complainant on 1-10-21.  The complainant is a veteran who has various health issues including one leg amputated and a heart patient too.  He has to visit hospital regularly and its for that convenience he opted for “(wagon R VXI (0) AGS 1.2 L BS-VI M).  His children are working aboard, hence all the booking process of the car were done by the opposite party No.1.  The complainant wished to purchase the car through canteen stores department (CSD in short) on exchange basis.  Since the mid of January 2022 there was no information regarding the delivery of the car.  The complainant contacted them several times through E-mail and phone calls, for which they replied that there was “a supply constraint of electronic components due to shortage of semiconductors” which had impacted vehicle production, hence there will be a delay in delivery.

3.      On 21.01.22 the opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to transfer Rs.30,000/- to hold the available car and promised to deliver it on February 2022.  Accordingly the complainant transferred the amount on the same day.  On 11^th February 2022 opposite party No.2 took the old Lancer car of the complainant bearing registration No.KL.05 -M- 1899 for Rs.45,000/- (which will be deducted from the price of new car) on assurance by showing the vehicle availability certificate of the opposite party No.3.  On 16.02.2022 on the strength of the vehicle availability latter of the opposite party NO.3, the opposite party No.5 also disbursed Rs.4,91,139/- (from loan amount Rs.4,96,000/- after deducting their service charges) to CSD account.  The remaining amount of the car shall be paid by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 in cash when required by them.  The vehicle availability letter shows the engine number, chassis number, model code, etc. of the car to be sold by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant.  However, till the end of February 2022 the opposite party No.1 did not deliver the car.  When the complainant contacted the opposite party No.1 they kept replying that since the CSD site was not working, they could not do the rest.  On 10^th March 2022, the complainant came to know that many people have purchased vehicles through CSD during the said period which includes similar model of car as opted by the complainant.  When the complainant enquired about the same, the opposite party No.1 was justifying themselves with lame excuses and revealed that the car mentioned in the vehicle availability letter was  sold by them to others for margin money.  By doing the above said acts, there is deficiency of service and breach of contracts on the part of the opposite party.

4.      The complainant referred complaint to the opposite party No.4 through E-mail.  There was no satisfactory response from them.  However by the end of February 2022, the opposite party No.4 had stopped the production of the model of the car which the complainant opted for and a new model was introduced in the market for a higher price approximately Rs.6,83,078/- (on road price through CSD).  The opposite party NO.1 reimbursed Rs.31,000/- the money advanced by the complainant on 30-03-22 and informed that instead of Rs.45,000/- (Price of complaint’s old car) Rs.35,000/- only will be returned and justified by saying that since no new car was purchased, they are not liable to pay back Rs.10,000/-.  Moreover the ICICI bank started levying interest on the principle amount (Rs.4,96,000/-).  Thus the complainant was brought to a situation where he had to pay the interest without getting the car.  The opposite party prevented the complainant from approaching another showroom.  Hence the complainant waited till the end of April, 2022 and then realized that the opposite party No.1 was purposefully delaying the delivery of the car.  The opposite party No.2 returned only Rs.35,000/- as the price of complainant’s old car on 25.05.2022.  The amount (Rs.4,91,139/-) disbursed to CSD account by the opposite party No.5 was not easily refundable.  For getting the said amount back, the complainant, though his health does not permit, had to travel more than once to Cochin.  The amount got reimbursed on the account of the complainant on 28^th July, 2022.  In between, after repeated requests and reminders, the opposite party No5 sent a notice to the complainant for the production of secured assets for verification against credit facility availed.  As per the above notice, the interest and other charges for the amount of Rs.4,96,000/- as on 6^th July, 2022 was Rs.33,639/- along with further interest thereon is outstanding.  By the act of the opposite parties, this complainant (Applicant for the car loan) and his younger son (co-applicant for the car loan) are described as defaulters by the opposite party No.5 and their names are also exhibited as defaulters in bank cibil site.  Even though the entire amount will be reimbursed, it has been informed by the opposite party No.5 that the names of the complainant and his younger son in the cibil site can be deleted only after a long time, which could not be predicted by them.  As a result this complainant and his younger son were / are not eligible to take any loan during these period.

5.      The opposite party No.2 took the old car of the complainant on 11^th February 2022 till the date they have not changed the ownership of the same.  Even though all necessary documents for changing the ownership was signed and given to the opposite party No.1.   The complainant lodged a written complaint to the SHO of Thrikkunnapuzha police station on 13.06.2022.  When the police called the opposite party No.2 and insisted for changing the ownership and renewing the insurance, they revealed that, they sold the same to someone in Nooranad without changing its ownership and sought further time till 4^th July 2022.  Moreover, as advised by the Police the complainant also sent as email to the Sub Regional Transport Office (

6.      In the above circumstances, the complainant is entitled to recover and realise Rs.10,000/- the balance amount of the old car of the complainant with interest (12%) thereon from 11.02.2022 till it’s realization and Rs.36,911/- the difference of the price of the car which the complainant opted for and the price of the new model of the same and Rs.4,96,000/- as special damages, since the name of the complainant and his younger son were published in the cibil site which prevented them from taking loan from any bank or financial institution and Rs.2,50,000/- as damages for mental agony and Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for breach of contract and Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for misleading advertisements.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the breach of contract, mental agony, misleading advertisements mentioned above and also liable to pay the said amount to the complainant.

7.      Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 filed version mainly contenting as follows:-

          The complainant booked the wagon R VXI (0) AGS 1.2 LBS-VI M on 01.10.2022 from 1^st opposite party and also requested to buy the vehicle through CSD and accordingly proceeded with that.  At the time of booking the complainant not remitted any amount.  The process of reserving the vehicle start from part payment.  3^rd opposite party is made all efforts to get the vehicle at the earliest from the manufacturer ie, opposite party No.4 unfortunately due to the lack of stock the particular vehicle was supply constraint of electronic components due to shortage of semiconductors which has impacted the vehicle production at opposite party No.4 which was duly intimated to the complainant as well.

8.      On 11.03.2021 complainant enquired about the vehicle through email but due to the site error issue could not complete the billing process and the same was informed to the complainant on same day.  It is true that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 21.01.2022 and served an availability letter to the complainant wherein it shows details of the vehicle indented for delivery.  It is also true that 2^nd opposite party received old Lancer car bearing No. KL. 05-M-1899 from the complainant on 11.07.2022 for Rs.35,000/- (vehicle value) + Rs.10,000/- (exchange bonus).  As per customer purchases a new vehicle from the Indus motors new car outlet.  Here in this case exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- was retained for the reason that complainant denied to purchase new vehicle from 1^st opposite party.  Complainant acknowledged this at the time of delivery of his old vehicle thereby complainant countersigned at the delivery receipt issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  The CSD site error was held up for months and we made all effort to get the vehicle billed and complete the registration process but site was not getting cleared and the same was informed to the complainant.  Consequently the amount was refunded and an email was given on 31.03.2022 regarding the cancellation of booking.  These opposite parties are not liable for the interest and also not responsible for names exhibited in the cibil site.

9.      The 2^nd opposite party received the old car of complainant and obtained signed forms and delivery receipt.  But when the vehicle checked in detail it was found that it is not in a condition to either use or resale, hence 2^nd opposite party decided to cancel the RC of the vehicle and took appropriate steps for the same and expecting the RC cancellation certificate from RTO.  2^nd opposite party was not desirous to resale the vehicle hence have not taken steps for changing the ownership and the vehicle was kept in the premises of 2^nd opposite party and was never used outside from the time it was received.

10.    By considering the age and conditions and also fitness of vehicle the same was not valued Rs.60,000/-.  As part of business 2^nd opposite party displayed the advertisement as stated and perform accordingly.  There is no deficiency in service and breach of contract or unfair trade practice from these opposite parties as alleged by the complainant.

11.    Opposite party No.4 filed version mainly contenting as follows:-

4^th opposite party is the manufacturer of Maruti Suzuki make vehicles.  This opposite party had no role to play in the transaction for sale between the complainant and opposite party No.1.  4^th opposite party does not sell its products to any individual under its invoice or sale certificate.  This opposite party sells its products to its authorized dealers and the relationship between the 4^th opposite party and the dealer is on principal to principal basis only as per the dealership agreement, the dealer shall not be deemed to be the agent or representative for any purpose and the dealer shall not describe or represent itself as such.  The 4^th opposite party sells the vehicles to its authorized dealers who sell the same to their customer under their own invoice and sale certificate under the Motor Vehicles Act to which the 4^th opposite party was neither privy nor received any consideration for the same.  The complainant is not a consumer of the 4^th opposite party as far as the alleged transaction for sale is concerned.  The booking has been cancelled and amount has been refunded.  4^th opposite party is not aware about the conversation of complainant with opposite party No.1 or levying of charges by opposite party No.5.  No amount was paid to 4^th opposite party either by complainant or by opposite party No.5.  No mental stress or loss was caused to the complainant due to any act of omission or commission on the part of the 4^th opposite party.  The complainant to his own will and volition opted to purchase the vehicle in question from opposite party No.1 and the 4^th opposite party had no role to play in the said transaction.  The complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint to obtain undue gains from the 4^th opposite party.

12.    The alleged dispute of assurance given to the complainant regarding delivery of vehicle is between the complainant and opposite party No.1 to which the 4^th opposite party is not privy.  The 4^th opposite party has not rendered any services in relation to sale of the vehicle by opposite party no.1 to the complainant and complainant failed to make any consumer dispute against this opposite party.

5^th opposite party remains exparte.

13.    On the above pleadings the points raised for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund Rs. 10,000/- with interest from 2^nd opposite party?

3.  Whether the complainant is entitled Rs. 36,911/- being the difference of price of the car opted by complainant  and new model car from opposite parties 1 and 3?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled Rs. 4,96,000/- as special damages?

5. Whether the complainant is entitled Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation from  opposite parties 1, 2 and 3?

6. Whether the complainant is entitled  Rs. 1,00,000/- from opposite parties 1,2 and 3 as damages for breach of contract?

7. Whether the complainant is entitled Rs. 1,00,000/-  from 2^nd opposite party as damages for  misleading advertisement?

8. Reliefs and costs?

14.    Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ext.A1 to A24 and MO1 on the side of  complainant and oral evidence of RW1 and RW2 and Ext.B1, B2, and B3 series on the side of opposite parties. Ext.X1 to X4 marked through RW2.

15.    Point No. 1 to 7:-

    For avoiding repetition of discussion these points  are considered together.

16.  PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A24.

17.    PW2 is the daughter in law  of the complainant. She produced  a pen drive recording conversation between her and 2^nd opposite party on 22/8/2022  over phone and the same had played in a lap top which was marked as MO1.

18.    Rw1 is the Senior Sales Manager of 1^st opposite party. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version of opposite parties 1 to 3 and got marked Ext.B2 and B3 series.

19.    RW2 is Joint RTO of SUB RTO, Kayamkulam. He produced the documents mentioned in summons. Those documents are  marked Ext.X1 to X4.  Ext.X1 is the application for dismantling the old vehicle of the complainant ie, car bearing Reg. No. KL.05-M-1899. Ext.X2 is its inspection report. Ext.X3 is letters issued to RC owner from RTO for submitting the necessary documents for changing  ownership. Ext.X4 is the order issued from Sub RTO Kayamkulam.  Due to nonpayment of Tax for last 6 months the said order was not became final.

20.    Complainant’s case is that he had booked a new car through CSD by 1^st opposite party on 1/10/2021. (Ext.A13).  He has to visit hospital regularly due to various health issues including one leg amputated and also a heart patient he opted a fully automatic wagonR VXI (o) AGS 1.2 LBS-VI M.  All the booking process were done by 1^st opposite party since the children are working abroad. The complainant wished  to purchase the car through CSD exchange basis. Delivery of the car delayed and there was no  information till January 2022.  On contacting through email and phone calls it was replied that  there was a “supply constraint of electronics component due to shortage of semi conductors” which   impacted  vehicle production.  As asked by  1^st opposite party the complainant transferred Rs.  30,000/- to 1^st opposite party to hold the available car and promised to deliver it on  February 2022. On 11/2/2022 the 2^nd opposite party took the old car bearing Reg. No. KL.05 M. 1899 for Rs. 45,000/- liable to be deducted from price of new car. On the strength of  vehicle availability  letter (Ext.A3) from 3^rd opposite party dated 8/2/2022, the 5^th opposite party disbursed Rs. 4,91,139/- from loan amount of Rs. 4,96,000/- (after deducting service charges) to CSD account on 16/2/2022. The said letter contains the engine  number,  chasis number, model code etc of the car to be sold by 1^st opposite party to the complainant. However till the end of  February 2022 they did not deliver the  car.  On enquiry it was replied that since CSD site was not working they could not do the rest. Subsequently on  10/3/2022 the complainant came to  know that  many people have purchased vehicles through CSD during the said period including similar model of  car as opted by complainant (Ext.A1).  It was justified by 1^st opposite party that  the car mentioned in Ext.A3 was sold by them to others for margin money. 

20.    Though the complainant referred complaint to 4^th opposite party, not responded and subsequently by the  end of the February 2022 4^th opposite party had stopped the production of the new model of the car which opted by the complainant and another model was  introduced for a higher price approximately Rs. 6,83,078/- ( on road price through CSD).  Thereafter 1^st opposite party had reimbursed Rs. 31,000/- to complainant on 30/3/2022 and  informed that instead of Rs. 45,000/- (price  of his old car) Rs. 35,000/- only will be returned and justified that since no new car was purchased they are not liable to pay back Rs. 10,000/- being exchange  bonus. 5^th opposite party started levying interest on principal amount of Rs 4, 96,000/-.  The opposite party prevented the complainant from approaching another showroom. Hence the complainant waited till the end of  April 2022 and then realized that the 1^st opposite party was purposefully delaying the delivery of the car.   The complainant had lost Rs. 10,000/- from this dealings. The amount which transferred to CSD Rs. 4,91,139/- from 5^th opposite party  was not easily refundable. After taking much effort the amount reimbursed on 28/7/2022 to the complainant’s account.

21.    Opposite parties 1 to 3 denied delay of delivery since it was informed to the complainant that there is a supply constraint of electronic components due to shortage of semi conductors which has impact vehicle production at Maruti Suzuki. They contended that since at the time of booking complainant had not remitted any amount the process of reserving the vehicle could not followed.  4^th opposite party filed version stated mainly contended that they had no role to play in the transaction for sale between the complainant and 1^st opposite party. They does not sell its product to any individual under its product to any individual under its invoice or sale certificate. The relationship between the 4^th opposite party and the dealer is a principal to principal basis only as per Ext.B1 dealership agreement.  The complainant is not  a consumer of the 4^th opposite party as far as the alleged transaction for sale is concerned. No amount was paid to 4^th opposite party either by complainant or by 5^th opposite party. 4^th opposite party has not rendered any services in relation to sale of  the vehicle by 1^st opposite party to the complainant and complainant failed to  make any consumer dispute against the 4^th opposite party.

 22.   Admittedly the complainant had booked a car (WagonR VXI (O) AGS 1.2 L BS VI M)  from 1^st opposite party. It is also admitted that the old vehicle of the complainant sold to the 1^st opposite  party  on an exchange basis  for an amount of Rs. 45,000/- as evidented from Ext.A5 the value for the said vehicle is Rs. 35,000/- and an exchange bonus is Rs. 10,000/-.  The wordings of the said document itself reveals that the said amount of  Rs. 10,000/- is only to be paid on exchange of old one to new one.  In the instant case the complainant did not purchase the new car and the booking was cancelled. In the said circumstance the complainant is not entitled the said exchange bonus of  Rs. 10,000/- from opposite parties.

       Secondly regarding the claim of difference of price of booking vehicle and new model, without  purchasing the new model how  the complainant can claim the said amount in that count.

23.    Thirdly PW1 is claiming a special damage for Rs. 4,96,000/- in connection with the names of PW1 and his younger son  who is the co-applicant of the vehicle   loan from 5^th opposite party incorporated in the CIBIL list of the 5^th opposite party. However no cogent evidence except the interested testimony of PW1 seen  adduced from the side of  the complainant in this regard. So he is not entitled for any compensation on that account.

 24.   Lastly it is to be noted that the complainant wished to purchase the vehicle through Canteen Stores Department.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 admitted the delay in delivery of the vehicle that there was a supply     constraint of electronic components due to shortage of semiconductors which had impacted vehicle production. In the said circumstances the delay in delivery of the vehicle to the complainant is not caused purposefully.  The settled position regarding the said issue as held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Ravinder Raj Vs. M.s Competent Motors Company Private Limited and  Anr. [2011 (2) KLJ (NOC) 20]  is that

“ Where the delay in delivery of the vehicle is not intentional the increase in price on account of increase in excise duty during the booking period has to be borne by purchaser since there is no deficiency in the service rendered  by the dealer or manufacturer”

 As indicated in Ext.A20,  there was no deliberate intention  on the part of opposite parties to delay in delivery of the vehicle and we found  satisfactory explanation for the delay in delivery of the vehicle to the  complainant.

 Hence assessing the entire evidence we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as pleaded in the complaint. These points are found accordingly.

25.    Point No. 8:-

           In the result complaint stands dismissed.  Both parties shall bear their respective costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 27^th  day of February, 2023.

                                  Sd/- Smt.Sholy.P.R (Member)

                        Sd/-Sri.S.SanthoshKumar(President)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                           -    Anandan.S (complainant)

PW2                           -     Adv. Remya . M . Sudarsan (Witness)    

Ext.A1                       -    Photo of the complainant

Ext.A2                       -    Print out copy of Work Sheet.

Ext.A3                       -    Print out copy of Vehicle availability Certificate

Ext.A4                       -    Print out of E-mail

Ext.A5                      -      Copy of Delivery Receipt

Ext.A6                      -      Copy of complaint  to SHO, Thrikkunnapuzha

Ext.A7                      -      Copy of Receipt of complaint to SHO, Thrikkunnapuzha

Ext.A8                      -       Print out of E-mail  to Sub RTO

Ext.A9                      -      Printout of E-mail to OP.2

Ext.A10                    -       Printout of E-mails to OP.4

Ext.A11                    -       Copy of list of cars purchased  through CSD in Kerala

Ext.A12                    -     Copy of Notice by  OP.5

Ext.A13                    -       Printout of Receipt sent by OP.1

Ext. A14                   -       Printout of transaction details.

Ext.A15                    -       Printout of  details of RTO Vehicle Information

Ext.A16                    -       Printout of Screen shot of  an advertisement of Op.2

Ext.A17                    -        Print out of receipt sent by OP. 1

Ext.A18                    -       Printout of E-mail from Customer care manager of OP 1,2 &3

Ext.A19                    -      Copy of complainant’s pass book

Ext.A20                    -       Printout of E-mail

Ext.A21                    -       Photograph

Ext.A22                    -        Toll deduction details

Ext.A23                    -       Copy of  Receipt and Petition dtd. 20/8/2022 to SHO, 

                                           Thirkunnappuzha

Ext.A24                    -        RC details and Challan  details of Penalty dtd. 30/5/2022.

Ext.MO1                   -        Pendrive

Evidence of the opposite parties:

RW1                          -            Ananthu.P (witness)

RW2                          -            Bhadran.C (witness)

Ext.B1                       -            Dealership Agreement

Ext.B2                       -            Authorisation letter 

Ext.B3 series              -          Letters

Ext.X1                                    -           Application for dismantling the old vehicle

Ext.X2                                    -           Inspection Report

Ext.X3                                    -           Letters  issued from RTO to  RC owner

Ext.X4                                    -           Order  issued from RTO Kayamkulam

                                                        ///True Copy ///

To     

          Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                 Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Br/-

Comp.by: