KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 409/13

JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2014

 (Against the order   in CC No.13/12 on the file of CDRF,  Trivandrum, dated 30/11/12) 

PRESENT

SMT. A. RADHA                          :   MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :          MEMBER

1. Senior Sales Manager,

Cordial Towers,

Indus Motors,

Pattom,

Trivandrum                                                           APPELLANTS

1. M/s. Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd.,

Cordial Towers,

Pattom,

Trivandrum

(By

          V/s.

     1. P. Krishnan Nair,

T.C. 29/830-1,

“Sarika”, Palkulangara,

Vallakkadavu PO,                                              RESPONDENTS

Trivandrum – 8                               

1. M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited,

New Delhi

JUDGMENT

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :          MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the order in CC No.13/2012 filed on 11/01/2012 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram, the respondents in the lower Forum “Senior Sales Manager, Indus Motors, Thiruvananthapuram” the 1^st appellant and “M/s. Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram” the 2^nd appellant (hereinafter together shall be referred as aappellants) preferred this appeal against order dated 30/11/2012 against complainant in the lower Forum “Shri. P. Krishnan Nair” the 1^st respondent and 2^nd respondent in the lower Forum “M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, New Delhi” the 2^nd respondent.

          2.      Brief facts the 1^st respondent in lower Forum are; he had booked a Maruti SX 4 VDI (M) on 26/08/2011 by paying an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- with the appellants.  The total amount as per the delivery form which included tax, registration etc. of the vehicle on the day of booking was Rs.8,67,416/-.  Though the delivery date was mentitoned as 26/09/2011, the vehicle was not delivered.  On 10/11/2011, 1^st respondent was informed that the vehicle is ready for delivery and he was required to remit the entire payment deducting the advance amount.  As advised, on 10/10/2011 1^st respondent remitted Rs.8,60,000/- but the appellants failed to deliver the vehicle till 15/11/2011 and on 15/11/2011 the appellants informed the 1^st respondent that there is price hike for the vehicle of Rs.10,000/- and informed the 1^st respondent that the vehicle will not be sent for registration unless the excess amount is been paid.  Hence respondent filed the complaint in the Hon’ble lower Forum for refund of excess amount collected along with compensation and costs.  Appellants have filed their joint version that the complainant had booked the car with the appellants as per the terms and conditions of the Order Booking form dated 26/08/2011.  The appellants never assured the 1^st respondent that they will deliver the car on 26/09/2011 or on any specified date.  Appellants could not deliver the vehicle within the tentative period shown in the order booking form only due to lack of supply of vehicles by the manufacturer.  The allegation that the 1^st respondent had paid the full amount on 10/11/2011 and the appellants had purposefully delayed the registration till 15/11/2011 is not true or correct.  In fact the vehicle was ready for delivry before 10/11/2011 and this was informed to the 1^st respondent, but he had not remitted the full payment as stated in the complaint.  The price increase was already been informed to the 1^st respondent after he booked the vehicle, but he preferred to make the full payment on 15/11/2011.  There was a shortage of Rs.8,000/- from the 1^st respondent on 11/11/2011 and the same was informed to the 1^st respondent but he demanded some more time to make the said payment.  As the payment was delayed appellants informed the 1^st respondent that since the vehicle was not invoiced due to the nonpayment of the total price of the vehicle, he has to pay the increased amount of Rs.10,000/- also along with outstanding amount.  The complaint, the appellants had breached the terms of purchase and committed unfair trade practice, delay and collected excessive price are absolutely false and unsustainable.

          3.      Lower Forum on hearing both the parties and on perusing the records and came to the following conclusions:

• That it is found the opposite parties have failed to establish and have not corroborated their contention that the complainant had delayed the same as he had to exchange the vehicle.
• 2^nd opposite party is exempted from liability based on their contention that they sell the vehicles to its authorized dealers under the Dealership Agreement against C form under the Central Sales Tax Act.  The authorised dealers including the 3^rd opposite party sell the vehicles to their customers under their own invoice and sales certificate as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

 respondent relied on the Hon’ble National Commission in its Revision Petition No.2677 of 2006 titled “V.K. Gupta & sons (HUF) V/s. Maruti Udyog & others” vide its order dated 01/09/2011 which has held “that the relationship between the Maruti Udyog Ltd. and the dealer was on principal to principal basis.”

• Opposite parties 1 & 3 have not filed affidavit in support of their contentions and have failed to corroborate the reason for delay with cogent evidence, hence based on the records opposite parties 1 & 3 on receiving full amount has deliberately delayed the delivery of the vehicle, which is a definite case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service
• Based on the above facts the Hon’ble lower Forum concluded that the opposite parties 1 & 3 shall jointly and severally refund Rs.10,000/- along with an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and costs.  Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order till realization.

4.  We heard arguments of both parties and perused the copy of impugned order and the copies of complaint, reply submitted by the opponent and all relevant documents on reject.

5.  Both the parties contested the tentative date for delivery of the vehicle and it is even observed in the lower Forum order the date of delivery is as specified as 10/10/2011, but on verifying the booking form submitted as Ext. P1 we found the date specified as 20/12/2011 issued on 26/08/2011 booking form.  However as appellants have accepted the fact that on 10/10/2011 they had confirmed the delivery of vehicle to the 1^st respondent and requested for payment, we are not bound to get into the details of tentative date for delivery of vehicle.  It also came to one notice that appellant has not produced the Revise Price list and the respondent had not submitted the final invoice. 

6.  The other point which the appellants have raised is that 1^st respondent had not completed the transaction or full and final payment on 10/10/2011 for an amount of Rs.8,67,496/- as specified in Exbt. P1.  To have a clear picture we are specifying below the dates on which the payment receipts are been made and amount paid;  

7.  Now on examining the above Ext.P2,  P3, P4  which concludes the payment as on 10/10/2011 equals a total amount of Rs.6,80,000/- only, whereby the amount as specified in the booking form as the final payment falls short of Rs.1,87,496/-.  On examining Ext.P6 an amount is finalized as exchange value of Rs.1,80,000/- which again the letter was issued only on 14/11/2011, hence which validates the argument raised by the appellants that the 1^st respondent had delayed in collecting the said exchange letter. It is persistent to note that in the booking form, exchange bonus is specified as nil and this has been also raised by the lower Forum.  However 1^st respondent never objected this fact and we feel the 1^st respondent deliberately avoided to mention this matter in detail.  Now considering the fact that exchange of vehicle is conducted with the same organizational part of the appellants and the delay could have happened also due to the defective service of the appellants which is not been raised by the respondent.  Exbt. P5 shows an amount of Rs.18,000/-.  The 1^st respondent had specifically stated that an excess of Rs.10,000/- was claimed by the appellants, but nowhere have specified the reason for not paying remaining outstanding amount of Rs.7,496/- on 10/10/2011 itself.

8.  The terms and conditions prevailing on the booking form clearly states that in Clause (1) “At the time of booking, customers are required to deposit booking amount and the balance amount should be remitted before the registration of the vehicle and clause (3) “Vehicle Prices and schemes prevailing at the time of invoicing of the vehicle shall be applicable”.  The 1^st respondent have signed and accepted the form terms and conditions and as discussed above the tentative date is not at all disputable as the vehicle is delivered vell ahead from the date specified in the form.  Hence the principle of “Caveat Emptor” shall be applicable.

9.  We do not see any reason to include 2^nd respondent to this matter and all the arguments raised in the lower Forum is specifically noted, hence we are of the opinion that 2^nd respondent do not have any liability in this matter.

10.  Having considered the material from all possible angles, we are of the considered opinion that 1^st respondent has failed to establish his claim based on our findings stated above.  We have, therefore no hesitation in holding that the finding of Ld. Forum below is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record.

For the above stated reasons, the appeal is allowed and the findings and order of the District Forum, Thiruvananthapuram is herebby set aside.  The parties to bear their own costs throughout.

SANTHAMMA THOMAS  :   MEMBER

1. RADHA                         :    MEMBER

nb