BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 21st day of December 2013
Filed on : 04/08/2012
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No. 477/2012
Between
Shaji George, : Complainant
S/o. Late George, Pollayil house, (By Adv. Saji Varghese,
Puttumanoor Kara, M/s. Sukumar Associates, Lake
Puthencruz P.O., View Apartments, Ground Floor,
Ernakulam-682 315. Church Landing Road, Kochi-16)
Vs
1.Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
Opp. Cochin Shipyard, (By Adv. P.K. Aboobacker,
M.G.Road, Cochin-682 015. Kombara Junction, Ernakulam
Rep. by its Managing Director. North P.O., Kochi-18)
2. Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Kakkanad Branch,
Collect orate Road,
Near Civil Station, Padamugal,
Kakkanad-602 030,
rep. by its Branch Manager.
3. Aneesh V.E., Sales Executive,
Kakkanad Branch, Collectorate
road, Near Civil Station,
Padamugal, Kakkanad-680 030.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
Fascinated by the assurances and rosy promises of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties the complainant booked an Ertiga ZD1 model car with the 2nd opposite party by paying Rs. 10,000/- on 27-04-2012. The price of the vehicle agreed to was Rs. 9,17,507/-. In the meantime the 3rd opposite party informed the complainant that there is delay for delivery of ZD1 model and VDI model is readily available. So the complainant decided to purchase a VDI model. The price of the VDI model was Rs. 8,67,974/-. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.7 lakhs from Union Bank of India, Puthencruz Branch to purchase the car. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,65,500/- with the Bank and at his request the Bank forwarded a draft for Rs. 8,65,000/- to the 1st opposite party on 17-05-2012. Thereafter in spite of repeated requests and reminders the opposite parties could deliver the car only on 14-06-2012. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 8,75,000/- to the opposite parties against the price of the car i.e. Rs. 8,67,974/-. The complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.7,026/- being the excess amount received from him. The complainant is entitled to get interest for the amount paid to the opposite parties from 17-05-2012 to 14-06-2012. Though the opposite parties collected a sum of Rs. 3,600/- towards registration charges, the complainant had to approach the RTO, Perumbavoor to get the car registered. Thus the complainant is before us seeking the following reliefs against the opposite parties.
To get refund of the excess amount received from the complainant.
To pay Rs. 8,990/- towards the interest paid by the complainant for the loan amount.
To refund Rs. 3,600/- with interest towards the amount received for registration charges
To pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows
On 27-04-2012 the complainant booked a Maruti Ertiga ZD1 white car with the opposite parties by paying Rs. 10,000/- towards advance payment. Since the said vehicle was having high demand the complainant decided to shift his booking to Maruti Ertiga VD1 model. Accordingly the booking was changed to Ertiga VDI. The tentative delivery period shown in the order booking form is “according to the supply from Maruti”. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 14-06-2012. At the time of delivery of the vehicle the opposite parties had informed the complainant regarding refund of the balance amount as there was cancellation of the first model and shifting to a different model. When the cheque for balance amount was ready the opposite parties had informed the complainant to collect the same but he did not do so. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any interest as claimed by the complainant. The complainant himself had taken the responsibility of registration. The opposite parties have not violated any of the terms and conditions printed overleaf of the booking form. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Ext. B1 was marked on their side. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the excess
price of the vehicle?
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay interest for the price
of the car from the entrustment of the demand draft till the date of
delivery of the car?
iii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to refund Rs. 3,600/- which
they have collected towards registration charges.
iv.Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs
of the proceedings from the opposite parties?
5. Point No.i. Admittedly the opposite parties collected an excess amount of Rs. 7,026/- towards the price of the car delivered to the complainant on 14-06-2012. The opposite parties contended that they were ready to refund the amount, but the complainant did not collect the same because the complainant was not informed of the same and there is no record before us that the opposite party’s readiness to refund the money prior to the institution of the complainant. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount from the opposite parties 1 & 2 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of delivery of the car till realization.
6. Point No. ii. It is not in dispute that the opposite parties collected a sum of Rs. 8,65,000/- from the complainant’s bank on 17-05-2012 towards the price of the car. It is also not in dispute that though the opposite parties collected the full price of the car on 17-05-2012, they could deliver the car only on 14-06-2012 with a delay of 27 days which has not been explained recordically. So which is answerable. Even according to the opposite party as per clause 1 in the order booking form the customer need to pay the price of the car in full the customer need to pay their price only before the registration of the car. During the period of delay the opposite parties were in possession and enjoyment of the amount. The complainant had to pay interest for the said amount during this period to the Bank which need not have been. Naturally the complainant is entitled to get interest for the amount for the period of delay.
7. Point. No. iii. the complainant contended that the opposite parties received a sum of Rs. 3,600/- towards registration charges of the vehicle, however he himself had to make arrangements for registration. It is to be noted that nothing is on record to substantiate the said contention of the complainant. What is unsubstantiated on record is only to be rejected. So we do the same.
8. Point No. iv. The opposite parties should have taken necessary arrangements to refund the excess amount to the complainant then and there at the time of delivery of the vehicle. However the grievances of the complainant have been sufficiently satisfied. We refrain from awarding any compensation. The 3rd opposite party being an employee of opposite parties 1 & 2 is not a necessary party to this complaint. He is exempted.
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows:
i. the opposite parties 1 and 2 shall jointly and severally refund Rs. 7,020/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of delivery of the car till realization.
ii. The opposite parties 1 & 2 shall jointly and severally also pay interest @ 12% p.a. for Rs. 8,65,000/- from 17-05-2012 the date of receipt of the demand draft till 14-06-2012 the date of delivery of the car.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of December 2013
Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copt of receipt dt. 27-04-2012
A2 : Copy of receipt dt. 17-05-2012
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 17-05-2012
Opposite party’s exhibits:
Ext. B1 : Copy of order booking/commitment
checklist.
Depositions:
PW1 : Shaji George
