DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 23/09/2017

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C. NO. 378/2017

COMPLAINANT

Benny Francis, Ellickal House, Banerji Road, Broadway Junction, Ernakualm

(Rep. by Adv. A.B. Jaleel & A.J. Shaheer, Shoolakkarampu Lane, Mariyakutty John Road, Ernakulam 682018)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. The Manager, Hercules Automobiles International Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Maruthi Dealer, Sanathanapurram P.O., A.C. Road, Kolarcode, Alappuzha 688003

(Rep. by Adv. Latha Anand & K.K. Sajikumar, M/s. B.S. Krishnan Associates, Diwans Road, Kochi 682016.

2. Magma Fincorp Ltd., 1^st Floor, jain Towersm, NH 47 Bypass Road, Power House Junction, Vyttila 682019.

(Rep. by Adv. Philip T. Varghese & Thomas T. Varghese, T.D. Road, Ernkaulam, Kochi 682011)

F I N A L    O R D E R

V. Ramachandran, President-in-charge:

Complainant states that the authorized agent of the opposite party company approached the complainant and assured that Swift D’zire car manufactured by Maruti Company shall be arranged for the complainant to use as Uber taxi. Accordingly the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- as advance. Subsequently on 29/04/2016 the opposite party asked the complainant to remit an amount of Rs.6,45,000/- and issued a proforma invoice for Rs.6,45,000/- after deducting advance amount of Rs.3,000/- paid on 25/04/2016. The complainant approached 2^nd opposite party which is Magma Fincorp Ltd. and arranged loan for the purchase and have remitted an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the authorized agent of the 1^st opposite party. Subsequently after completion of all formalities, the car as promised has not been delivered to him. It is learnt that the authorized agent has absconded and the 1^st opposite party had made a complaint before the Police authorities. The complainant further states that he had repeatedly contacted the 1^st opposite party and also informed that the 2^nd opposite party is recovering the amount of Rs.11,744/- from the account of the complainant in every month. Complainant states that the 1^st opposite party is responsible for the transactions made by authorized agent from which the 1^st opposite party can’t wash his hands off. The above action of 1^st opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and therefore the complainant seeks compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and also to deliver a new Maruti Swift D’zire car along with other reliefs.

Upon notice from the Commission 1^st  and 2^nd opposite parties appeared and filed their version.

The main contention of the 1^st opposite party is that Sri. Abhilash C.K. who is an employee of the 1^st opposite party had absconded from the company on 03/05/2016. He was removed from the service for fraud and misconduct. There is not even a single paper with the 1^st opposite party relating to the transaction between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party. The allegation that the opposite party has issued a receipt for the amount received towards booking charges is absolutely incorrect. The 1^st opposite party issued a proforma invoice showing the total price of the vehicle as Rs.6,45,000/- after deducting the booking charges of Rs.3,000/- that is Rs.6,42,000/- to the complainant is denied by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is totally unaware of the alleged transaction. The allegation of the complainant is that he has paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the opposite party towards the balance of the amount of the vehicle after adjusting the amount offered by the 2^nd opposite party towards the hire purchase price is absolutely incorrect and denied. The said Abhilash had mad made several fraud plays in the 1^st opposite party company. When the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party then only the 1^st opposite party understood that there was some dealing between the complainant and Mr. Abhilash. In short the 1^st opposite party denied all the averments of the complainant.

The 2^nd opposite party contented that they are an unnecessary party in the complaint. The 2^nd opposite party had extended financial assistance to the complainant for the purchase of a Maruti D’zire car. The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.4,10,630/- from the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant had entered into a Hire Purchase Finance Agreement with the 2^nd opposite party on 10/05/2016. As per the terms of agreement the complainant had to repay the amount in 48 monthly instalments. The complainant had agreed to repay the instalments at the rate of Rs.11,744/- per month and the instalments had to be repaid on the 20^th day of every month till April, 2020. The complainant had not informed the 2^nd opposite party that the vehicle was not delivered to him. The complainant had entered into a hire purchase finance agreement dated 10/05/2016 and availed a loan of Rs.4,10,630/- from the 2^nd opposite party as regards to all the other averments of the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party stated that they are not responsible.   

The complainant had produced 8 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A8.  The opposite party filed proof affidavit only.

Exbt. A1 is the copy of order booking/commitment checklist issued by the 1^st opposite party goes to show that the complainant had booked Swift D’zire Car on 25/04/2016 as per order booking No. 9864, Exbt. A2 is the copy of proforma invoice issued by the 1^st opposite party, Exbt. A3 is the copy of receipt dated 25/04/2016 issued by the 1^st opposite party for Rs.3,000/- duly sealed and signed by the 1^st opposite party’s authorized signatory. Exbt. A4 is the copy of worksheet showing the details of registration charges etc., Exbt. A5 is the copy of letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party, Exbt. A6 is the copy of appointment letter issued to Sri. Abhilash C.K. by the 1^st opposite party, Exbt. A7 is the copy of bank account statement of the complainant.

From the above documents and also from the facts and figures submitted by both sides the Commission has to verify the following points:

1. Whether the complainant is sustained to any sort of deficiency of service, or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible to get any relief from the opposite party?
3. Cost of the proceedings if any?

On going through the complaint, version and evidence produced by the complainant, it can be seen that an authorized agent of 1^st opposite party approached the complainant and made him believe that he is the authorized agent of the 1^st opposite party and accordingly the complainant and authorized agent of the 1^st opposite party had engaged into a contract for the purchase of Swift D’zire Car from the 1^st opposite party. Exbt. A1 produced by the complainant very clearly reveals that an amount of Rs.3,000/- has been paid by the complainant and accepted by the authorized agent of 1^st opposite party. Further it can be seen from Exbt. A2 produced by the complainant that the 1^st opposite party has issued a proforma invoice on 29/04/2016 to the complainant in which the value of the car is shown as Rs.6,45,000/- from which the booking amount of Rs.3,000/- is deducted and an amount of Rs.6,42,000/- is derived and from which another amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is deducted showing a total balance price Rs.3,92,000/-. Above that it is written in words and figures that Rs.2,50,000/- received and it is sealed and signed by different persons. Exbt. A3 receipt emphasise on the argument of the complainant that he had paid Rs.3,000/- as advance. Further Exbt. A5 which is letter sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party is also very clearly reveals that the 1^st opposite party was aware of all the transaction.

From the above documents even though the 1^st opposite party denied all the averments of the complainant that they were unaware of the transactions made by Sri. Abhilash and had come to know only when the complainant approached them is disproved from Exbt. A5 which is a letter sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party regarding the disbursement of loan amount. Moreover Exbt. A6 very clearly shows that the said Abhilash C.K. was a staff of 1^st opposite party and who had made all the transactions for the 1^st opposite party. From the documents Exbt. A1 to A5 it is evident that the 1^st opposite party and their staff has played a vital role in accepting the amount from the complainant. The employer can’t wash his hands and evade from the responsibilities for the action of the employees being done in the official capacity while working as employees of the Institution.

In the instant case the 1^st opposite party is responsible for the actions of the employees Sri. Abhilash C.K. while in his tenure and during official duty who collected the amount for which documentary evidences of the 1^st opposite party’s were given by the employees for which the 1^st opposite party is responsible and hence Point No. 1 is proved in favour of the complainant. Since the Point No. (1) is proved in favour of the complainant Point No. (2) and (3) decided accordingly. Hence the following orders are issued.

1. 1^st Opposite party shall refund an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant.
2. 1^st opposite party shall refund another amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) to the complainant.
3. 1^st opposite party shall refund an amount Rs.4,10,630/- (Rupees four lakhs ten thousand six hundred thirty only) to the complainant which is the loan amount paid by the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party

All the above amount carry interest at the rate 12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

4. The 1^st opposite party shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees neo lakhs only) as compensation to the complainant.
5. The 1^st opposite party shall pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

The 1^st opposite party shall to comply with the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt the copy of this order.

.     

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 23^rd day of March, 2024

V.Ramachandran, President-in-charge

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exbt. A1:    Copy of order booking form/commitment chechlist       

Exbt. A2:    Copy of proforma invoice

Exbt. A3:    Copy of receipt

Exbt. A4:    Copy of detailed price list of the vehicle

Exbt. A5:    Copy of letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to 1^st opposite party

Exbt. A6:    Copy of appointment letter of Abhilash C.K.

Exbt. A7:    Copy of account details of the complainant

Exbt. A8:    Copy of account details of the complainant

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 378/2017

Order Date: 23/03/20172023