D.O.F:15/07/2020
D.O.O:30/11/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.77/2020
Dated this, the 30th day of November 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Jose P.J,
S/o late John, aged 45 years
Residing at Pookumbel House,
Malakkallu PO,Rajapuram Via
Kallar Village, Vellarikundu Taluk, :Complainant
Kasaragod District, Kerala,
(Adv: P.K.Biju)
And
- Shyam
The Branch Manager (Sales),
Idus Motor Co Pvt Ltd,
Kanhangad, PO Mavungal
Kasaragod dist
- Jojo Mathew
Sales Officer
Indus Motors Co Pvt Ltd
Kanhangad, PO Mavungal
Kasaragod dist
- The Regional Manager Cochin
Indus Motors Co Pvt Ltd:Opposite Parties
MG Road Thevara,
Opp. SBI Branch, Shipyard
Cochin 682015.
- The manager Calicut Reg. Office
Indus Motors Co Pvt Ltd
Indus House PB No 923
Chakkorathukulam West Hill
- The ShowroomManager (Area Office)
Indus Motors Co Pvt Ltd
Saidarpally Thalassery
Ph: 011-467811000.
- Maruthi Suzuki India Limited
1 Nelson Mandela Road
Vassant Kunj
New Delhi 110070 Ph.984730000
(Adv:Babuchandran.K, for 1 to 6)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The facts of the case in brief is that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 approached the complainant on 14.12.2019 and offered that they will deliver a new Maruti Alto VXI Silver BSVI car in exchange, within three days from handing over of the complainant’s old car bearing No. KL-38-F-3147and believing their words the complainant paid Rs.3000/- for booking for the same and another Rs.3,000/- for changing the name in the RC of his car No. KL-38-F-3147. The opposite party also offered that an amount of Rs 15,000/- as exchange bonus and Rs.40,000/- as customer offer with all accessories for the exchange of his old car through ‘true value ‘of their company. On 16.12.2019 the complainant agreed to hand over his old car for exchange bonus and the ops issued a cash receipt for Rs.65,000/- and assured the complainant that he can use the old car till the delivery of the new car. On 21.12.2019, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 approached the complainant and demanded some amount towards advance payment for the new car and the complainant managed to pay Rs.50,000/-on 21.12.2019, by way of RTGS from NRI account of his wife. On 30.12.2019 the opposite parties demanded the complainant to hand over the old vehicle for the delivery of the new vehicle and accordingly the complainant handed over the vehicle No. KL-38-F-3147. Then the opposite parties demanded the complainant to pay the entire balance amount and the complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/-on 06.01.2020 by raising the amount from his KSFE chitty. There after the opposite parties started to avoid the complainant by not attending his calls. The delivery of the car delayed and asked directly, the opposite parties ridiculed him.
The Opposite Parties did not provide any alternate car for his use till the delivery of the new vehicle. He lost his convenience after handing over of his old car to the Opposite Parties for exchange. At last a new car was delivered to him on 27.01.2020 from the Kanhangad outlet of the Opposite Parties, but when the complainant reached home he noticed that the front bumper of the new car was repainted. On enquiry it was revealed by a sales executive of the opposite parties that the vehicle was involved in an accident during its handling by the Opposite Parties and that resulted in delay in delivery. Moreover the radio antenna of the new car was broken and the doors were not locking properly on its centre lock system. When the complainant made a complaint, the sales manager of the Opposite Parties told him to make a claim for repair under the Maruti insurance policy No.57030031191144614703 of the complainant . The Opposite Parties failed to provide exchange bonus of Rs 15,000/- and customer offer Rs.40,000/- as offered with all accessories for the exchange of his old car through ‘true value ‘of their company. The Opposite Parties failed provide necessary service to the complainant even after they received a total of Rs.3,85,000/- from him. The Opposite Parties failed to solve the problems of the new car even after the first service on 25.01.2020. More over the Opposite Parties made him to pay Rs.3,000/- towards extended warranty on 27.10.2020.
The act of the Opposite Parties amounts to unfair trade practice and service deficiency, due to which the complainant suffered great mental agony and monetary loss.
Hence the complaint is filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay damage and costs viz.Rs.56,000/-, being the total amount for 28 days, at the rate of Rs.2000/-per day from 30.12.2019, the date of handing over of the old car to 27.01.2020 the date of the delivery of the new car, Rs.50,000/- towards the damages of front bumper and centre locking system, Rs.1,00,000/-for mental agony and hardships,Rs.12,382/- the excess amount received from the complainant.
The notice issued to the Opposite Parties are served and they entered appearance through their respective counsels. The Opposite Party No.1 and 6 filed written version and Opposite Party No.2 to 5 adopted the version of Opposite Party No.1.
As per the version of the Opposite Party No.1, the complaint is false frivolous vexatious and not maintainable in law and as such it is liable to be dismissed.
It is admitted that the complainant purchased a Maruti Alto 800 VXI car from the opposite party on 27.01.2020. But all the other averments in the version that the Opposite Party offered Rs.15,000/-as exchange bonus and Rs.40,000/- as customer offer etc. are false and denied. It is submitted that the ex-showroom price of Maruti Alto 800silver BSVI vehicle is Rs.3,79,629/- The Opposite Party has given the benefit of Rs.52,000/- to the complainant(ie; Rs.5,000/- exchange bonus, Rs.25,000/-customer benefit, Rs.5,000/-, NRI ,benefit, Rs.7,000/-,Accessory bonus).The complainant has to pay Rs.3,87,164/- to the Opposite Party, as the total on road value of the vehicle(ie; Rs.3,27,623/- ex-showroom price, after deducting Rs.52,000/-) + Rs.18,299/- insurance premium, Rs.26,524/- Road Tax, Rs.970/-Registration charge,Rs.6,449/- extra fitting charge,Rs.6749/- charge for 5 years extended warranty, Rs.500/- fast tag charge).The complainant after repeated demand paid the balance only on 27.01.2020 and on the same day the vehicle was delivered to him. In fact the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,164/- to the Opposite Party and the same is still pending. The Opposite Party insured the vehicle in advance in order to save the benefit of Rs.15,000/-in order to get the customer benefit for the booking done in the month of December, insurance had to be taken before 10th January. At the time of booking the opposite party informed the complainant that the new vehicle will be delivered with in 40 days subject to the availability and the complainant agreed for the same.
The complainant is not entitled to for any relief claimed in the complaint.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 .
The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
As per the version of the Opposite Party No. 6, the present complaint is without any cause of action against the Opposite Party No.6. The complainant failed to set out any specific allegation against the Opposite Party No.6 and has no case for deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. The Opposite Party No.6 is unnecessarily dragged into the instant litigation. All the transaction were held in between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 and 2. The Opposite Party No.6 has no privy to any such transaction. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.6. The complainant is liable to be dismissed.
The Complainant filed the proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced documents which are marked as Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 10 series. The Ext - A1 is the cash receipt dated 16.12.2019, Ext. A 2 is the Exchange receipt dated 16.12.2019, Ext. A3 is the RTGS receipt dated 21.12.2019, Ext. A4 is the RTGS receipt dated 06.01.2020, Ext. A5 is the cash receipt dated 27.01.2020, Ext .A6 is the Delivery receipt dated 30.12.2019 Ext. A7 is the copy of the Insurance Policy, Ext A8 is the copy of Regd. notice dated 26.02.2020, Ext A9 series are the Postal acknowledgement cards (5 in numbers) , Ext A10 series are the Postal receipts (7 in numbers) The complainant was Cross -examined as PW - 1.
From the side of the Opposite Parties, no evidence is adduced. No document marked.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1 . Whether there is any unfair trade practice or service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite parties?
2 . If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 induced him to purchase a new Maruti Alto VXI Silver BSVI car in exchange of his old car offering certain benefits and there after failed to keep their words. The Opposite Parties failed to provide exchange bonus of Rs 15,000/- and customer offer Rs.40,000/- as offered with all accessories for the exchange of his old car through ‘true value ‘of their company as offered at the time of booking of the car. The Opposite Parties also failed to provide necessary service to the complainant even after they receive a total of Rs.3,85,000/- from him. The Opposite Parties failed to solve the problems of the new car even after the first service on 25.01.2020. More over the Opposite Parties made him to pay Rs.3,000/- towards extended warranty on 27.10.2020.
The opposite party admitted the purchase of Maruti Alto 800 VXI car by the complainant from the opposite party on 27.01.2020,but deny all the other averments in the complaint that the Opposite Party offered Rs.15,000/-as exchange bonus and Rs.40,000/- as customer offer etc. as false. They deny that there was any such offer of exchange bonus of Rs 15,000/- and customer offer Rs.40,000/- .
Here the complainant did not produce any document to show that the opposite party had made any offers as alleged . No advertisement or brochures to that effect issued by the opposite parties is produced.
The opposite party submits that in order to get the benefits of exchange bonus , the RC of the old vehicle must be in the name of the complaiant. Here admittedly the RC of the vehilcle No.KL38F3147 was not in the name of the complainant.
The Opposite Party submits that even then they have given benefits of Rs.52,000/- to the complainant (ie; Rs.5,000/- exchange bonus, Rs.25,000/-customer benefit, Rs.5,000/-, NRI benefit, Rs.7,000/-, Accessory bonus). The complainant has to pay Rs.3,87,164/- to the opposite party as the total on road value of the vehicle.ie; Rs.3,27,623/- ex-showroom price (after deducting Rs.52,000/-) + Rs.18,299/- insurance premium, Rs.26,524/- Road Tax, Rs.970/-Registration charge, Rs.6,449/- extra fitting charge, Rs.6749/- charge for 5 years extended warranty, Rs.500/ fast tag charge).
Neither of the parties produced the Tax invoice issued by the opposite party at the time of purchase of the new vehicle, so as to verify the exact price and the amount charged towards various heads and the benefits and deductions given there to.
The complainant submits that even though the opposite party offered that they will deliver a new Maruti Alto VXI Silver BSVI car in exchange, with in three days from handing over of the complainant’s old car bearing No. KL-38-F-3147, they gave the delivery of the new car after much delay. Even though the complainant had handed over his old car on 30.12.2018, the new car was delivered on 27.01.2019.
The complainant further submits that new vehicle delivered to him was in a damaged condition as it was involved in an accident during its handling by the Opposite Parties and that resulted in delay in delivery. The front bumper of the new car was repainted. More over the radio antenna of the new car was broken and the doors were not locking properly on its centre lock system. Even though the opposite parties denied any damage to the new car delivered , they virtually admitted a minor damage to the aerial of the vehicle during their cross examination of PW1. That shows that the vehicle delivered to the complainant was not defect free, as claimed to be.
Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, this commission is of the view that there is negligence, service deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 5, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships apart from financial loss. The Opposite Parties No.6 is exonerated from liability as there is no evidence.
The complainant states that due to the delay in the delivery of the car he suffered a loss of Rs.2,000/-per day for 28 days. But he did not produce any document to show such a huge loss. There is no commission report or such reliable evidence to show the damage to the front bumper or to the central lock system.
Therefore this commission holds that a total amount of Rs.20,000/- will be a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- ((Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs to the complainant .
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of receipt of the copy of this judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1: Cash receipt dtd: 16.12.2019
A2: Exchange receipt dtd: 16.12.2019
A3: RTGS receipt dtd: 21.12.2019
A4: RTGS receipt dtd: 06.01.2020
A5: Cash receipt dtd: 27.01.2020
A6: Delivery receipt dtd: 30.12.2019
A7: Copy of the Insurance Policy
A8: Copy of the Registered notice dtd:26.02.2020
A9: Series Postal acknowledgement cards
A10: Series Postal receipts
Witness Examined
Pw1: Jose.P.J
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
