DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 18/09/2015

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

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

C.C. NO. 189/2015

COMPLAINANT

Reji P.V., S/o. Varghese, Payyappillil House, Plot No. 3D, M.K.K. Nair Nagar, Tripunithura, Ernakulam, Kochi 682301.

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. St. Mary’s Motors, Ernakulam, Authorized Dealer of Royal Enfield Bullet Cycles having its Office and Showroom at 41/481, Chittoor Road, Ernakulam, Rajaji Junction, Kochi 682035. Rep. by its Manager

(Rep. by Adv. Asish K. John, 44/634, Link Avenue, Kaloor, Ernakulam, Cochin682017)

2. M/s. Royal Enfield (A unit of Eicher Motors Ltd.), Tiruvottiyur High Road, Tiruottiyur Chennai 600019. Rep. by its Managing Director

F I N A L    O R D E R

V. Ramachandran, Member:

The gist of the complaint is that the complainant approached the opposite party for purchasing a Classic 350 UCS Royal Enfield Bullet (Black Colour) in the name of his daughter. At the time of booking the vehicle, the price of the vehicle was Rs.1,35,014/-. The complainant paid the above amount and booked the same on the assurance of the 1^st opposite party that the vehicle will be delivered within 6-8 months. (It can be seen that only Rs.5,000/- is paid by the complainant as advance amount as per Exbt. A1 even though it is stated that the above amount is paid.). Subsequently 1^st opposite party told the complainant that the vehicle will be issued directly by the 2^nd opposite party and the registration will be done only in the name of the person booked the vehicle and assured that the delivery of the vehicle will be done strictly as per the order of booking. Believing the assurance made by the 1^st opposite party the complainant booked the vehicle and waited for the delivery. The complainant also raised necessary amounts and waited for the call form the 1^st opposite party. In the meantime the complainant saw that some of the neighbour of the complainant was given Black vehicle by the 1^st opposite party and on enquiry it is revealed that all of them were booked the vehicle after 16/01/2014 ie. after the date of booking of the complainant. The complainant requested to the opposite parties via e-mail on 05/01/2015 to issue booking details and delivery details from January, 2014 and the 2^nd opposite party replied to the complainant to contact the Area Sales Manager. The rate of the vehicle at the time of booking was Rs.1,35,014/- then it was revised to Rs.1,42,310/- from January, 2015 onwards and the opposite party compelling the complainant to purchase the vehicle at the revised rate. Aggrieved by the action of the opposite party the complainant approached this Commission to get order directing the opposite party to produce all the booking details of Classic 350 UCS Royal Enfield Bullet (Black Colour) and delivery details of the same from January, 2014 to till date and to deliver a brand new Classic 350 UCE Royal Enfield Bullet to the complainant at the rate prevalent during August, 2014 along with other reliefs.

Upon notice from the Commission 1^st opposite party appeared and filed their version.

In the version opposite party contended from June, 2014, the complainant started to contact the 1^st opposite party for the vehicle and on all such occasions it put forward some lame excuses etc are false and hence denied. After booking the vehicle in January, 2014, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party only in the 1^st week of July to collect Exbt. A2. Thereafter also he did not contact the 1^st opposite party until the 1^st opposite party informed him about the availability of the vehicle in October, 2014.

The averments in paragraph 6 is not known to the 1^st opposite party and hence denied. But not taking delivery of the vehicle in October, 2014 the complainant forfeited his priority according to the date of booking. This fact was made known to the complainant when the complainant declined to take delivery of the vehicle. As the complainant did not turn up after October, 2014 the booking was not revived as it was not possible to confirm his requirement of the vehicle. The 1^st opposite party submits that there was no complaint from the complainant till January, 2015 about the non-delivery of the vehicle. In January, 2015 he contacted the 1^st opposite party and on enquiry he was told about the revised price of the vehicle. Then all on a sudden he made complaint to the 2^nd opposite party. The Area Sales Manager of the 2^nd opposite party could convince the complainant about the price hike. But the complainant has preferred this complaint as an experimental measure.

The averment in paragraph 8 of the complaint that the opposite parties are compelling the complainant to purchase the vehicle with revised rates is not correct and hence denied. Even in Exbt. 1 the terms of the contract was that price prevailing at the time of delivery will be applicable. There is no compulsion from the side of 1^st opposite party on the complainant to purchase the vehicle. This opposite party is ready to revive the booking and deliver a vehicle with priority if the price prevailing on the date of delivery is paid.

The complainant had produced 6 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A6.  The opposite party produced document which is marked as Exbt.B1. complainant is cross-examined as PW1 and DW1 was cross-examined.

The points for consideration are:

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 from either side, it can be seen that the complainant had approached the opposite party and booked a Classic 350 UCS Black Colour vehicle on 16/01/2014 on payment of Rs.5,000/- as booking amount which is evidenced by Exbt. A1 and Ext. A2 is a proforma invoice showing the value of the vehicle as on date 05/07/2014 as Rs.1,35,014/-. Exbt. A3 is the copy of e-mail communication to the opposite party. Exbt. A4 is statement of account of Reenu & Reji maintained by Federal Bank, Tripunithura Branch. Exbt. B1 produced by the opposite party is a vehicle intent having details and description of intended quality.

From the above documents it can be seen that the complainant had booked Classic 350 UCS Black Colour Enfield Bullet and an amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid by the complainant as booking charge to the opposite party. at the time of examination PW1 in box it was deposed by him that “കംപ്ലയിൻറെൻറെ 6-ം പാരയിൽ വണ്ടി കിട്ടിയതായി പറയുന്നുണ്ട്. അവരുടെ പേരോ വിലാസമോ (ഉത്തരം) അറിയാം, പേര് കംപ്ലയിൻറിൽ കൊടുക്കാതിരുന്നത് (ഉത്തരം) അതാവശ്യമില്ല അദ്ദേഹം സാക്ഷിയുമല്ല. അതേ പാരഗ്രാഫിൽ പറയുന്ന Some other പാർട്ടിയുടെ പേരോ വിലാസമോ അറിയാമോ (ഉത്തരം) ഇല്ല. Some other പാർട്ടി ബുക്ക് ചെയ്ത ഡേറ്റ് അറിയാമോ (ഉത്തരം) അറിയാം. അവർ ഏത് ഏജൻസിയിലാണ് ബുക്ക് ചെയ്തതെന്ന് അറിയാമോ (ഉത്തരം) അറിയാം. രേഖകൾ കണ്ടിട്ടില്ല.”

From which even though the complainant alleged that the seniority of the complainant was defeated by issuing vehicle to others except the order claim. No documentary evidence or examine of such witness has been made by the complainant to prove his argument. It is also to be noted that at the time of cross examination of DW1 in box it is deposed by DW1 is that the complainant had not reached the opposite party. “വാഹനം വാങ്ങാൻ വന്നില്ല എന്ന് താങ്കൾ പറയുന്നു. എന്നാൽ ഏതെങ്കിലും രീതിയിൽ പരാതിക്കാരനെ ഇക്കാര്യം അറിയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടോ (ഉത്തരം) മെയിലിൽ അറിയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. ” and opposite party had intimated to the complainant via e-mail. From the above two evidences neither the complainant proved his argument as fully correct that the priority has been overlooked as claimed by him nor the opposite party proved their claim that no vehicle were delivered to anybody during the period. Hence the Commission issued orders as follows: Opposite party shall pay Rs.3,00,244/- (Rupees three lakh two hundred forty four only) along with 7.25% interest per annum to the complainant.

1. Opposite party shall return an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 7.25% from the date of booking till the date of realization.
2. The opposite party had not delivered their assurances as is seen from entire records and therefore the opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the complainant for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party which resulted mental stress and pain to the complainant.
3. The opposite party shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

The opposite paries shall jointly and severally liable 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 5^th day of February, 2024

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exbt. A1:    Copy of order booking form   

Exbt. A2:    Copy of quotation/proforma invoice

Exbt. A3:    Copy of e-mail communication

Exbt. A4:    Copy of account statement

Exbt. A5:    Copy of RTI

Exbt. A6:    Copy of letter received from RTO

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Exbt. B1:    Copy of delivery list

Deposition

PW1: Reji P.V.

DW1:          Binoj T.B.

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 189/2015

Order Date: 05/12/2023