BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 293/2012 Filed on 25/08/2012
Dated: 05..01..2017
Complainant:
Kumari Prabha, w/o (late) Bhaskaran Pillai, Prabha Nilayam, Keraladityapuram, Sreekaryam, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 587.
(By Adv. Arun. R)
Opposite parties:
1. The Manager, Indus Motors, Mankara Sasthamkotta, Kollam-690 520.
2. Indus Motors represented by its Manager, Cordial Towers, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
(Opp. parties 1 & 2 by Adv. Deepesh. A.S)
This C.C having been heard on 01..11..2016, the Forum on 05..01..2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:
Complainant’s case is that complainant’s husband has booked Red Swift VDI Car on 19/12/2011 with booking No. 22510 by paying an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. At the time of booking the tentative waiting period was fixed as five months and total on road price of the vehicle was fixed at Rs. 6,35,414/-. The vehicle was not ready even after the expiry of the tentative waiting period of five months as promised by the opposite party. Complainant’s husband passed away due to sudden illness on 14/06/2012. After the demise of complainant’s husband opposite parties office contacted complainant and said that car was ready. The complainant explained the situation and expressed the willingness to take the car after two weeks, for which opposite party’s Assistant Sales Manager agreed. On 25/07/2012 complainant arranged Rs. 3 lakh car loan from Canara Bank, Ulloor Branch, Thiruvananthapuram and balance amount was to be arranged by the opposite parties through car finance. On the same day opposite party’s Assistant Sales Manager informed complainant that the car price has increased from 6,35,414/- given at the time of booking to Rs. 6,82,821/-. This increase was not informed to the complainant, earlier and even at the time of booking the car, it was not informed to the complainant that she have to pay the increased price if there is any increase, which amounts to deficiency of service. Complainant has agreed to pay the increased amount. At the time opposite party’s Assistant Sales Manager informed complainant that the red colour car which was booked was not available, as it was given to some other person. Complainant was instructed to take car with another colour, to which complainant declined. So complainant was asked to wait for another eight months for the delivery of the car. This amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant issued an advocate notice demanding the opposite party to reimburse the amount already paid as the advance amount. The opposite party accepted the notice but did not even care to reply or to act as per the demanded in the notice. The complainant is legally entitled to get back the advance amount paid for the car and also an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the hardship suffered. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice, as the car booked by the complainant was given to some other person and the delivery of car within assured period of five months and the act of not delivery the car amounts to deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.
2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version contenting that it is submitted that all the vehicle booking is taken subject to the terms and conditions in the Order Booking Form issued to the customers. The opposite parties had informed the complainant that the white and red colours are having highest demands and a lot of customers are waiting for these colours and the opposite party cannot deliver the vehicle overlooking the priority and if the complainant require red colour he has to wait for some time. The complainant had agreed to wait for his priority. The allegation that opposite parties had promised to deliver the vehicle within 5 months is not true or correct and hence denied. Opposite parties had not given any such assurance. The period of five month shown in the Order Booking / commitment Checklist is only as tentative waiting period. At the time of booking itself it is stated that the period of five month mentioned in the Order Booking / Commitment Checklist is only a tentative period and the same may vary due to different reasons and the complainant had also agreed the same and the same is clearly mentioned in the Order Booking Form and after reading the terms and conditions only he had signed the Order Booking Form. The opposite parties are only the dealers of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd who are the manufacturers of Maruti vehicles. These opposite parties can deliver the vehicle only on the basis of receipt of the same from the manufacturer. In the terms and conditions portion printed on the Order Booking / Commitment Checklist it is shown that the vehicle price prevailing at the time of invoicing of vehicle shall be applicable and the above price (ie.the price shown in the order booking form) prevailing at the time of booking and the same may change at the time of invoice. It is further stipulated that promotional scheme prevailing at the time of invoicing of vehicle shall be applicable and the above scheme (ie, the scheme shown in the order booking form) is prevailing at the time of booking and the same may change at the time of invoicing. The prices and schemes prevailing at the time of invoicing of the vehicle shall be applicable, that the vehicles will be delivered strictly on the order of customer booking subject to payment and other formalities that tentative delivery period given in the order booking form is only indicative and that the vehicle delivery is however subject to availability of vehicles. The vehicle delivery will be subject to the availability of vehicles from the manufacturer. The dealer can deliver the vehicle only subject to the dispatching of the vehicle from the manufacturer. When the vehicle was ready for delivery opposite parties had informed the said fact to the complainant. But the complainant was not ready to take delivery of the vehicle saying that they are not ready to take the vehicle at that time due to the sad demise of her husband and informed that she would inform us when she wanted the vehicle. The opposite parties 1 & 2 had informed the complainant that the opposite parties being a dealer cannot hold the said vehicle for the complainant for an indefinite period and the same will be allotted to the next customer in the seniority list and another vehicle will be allotted to the complainant on availability and the complainant had agreed for the same. The allegation that the complainant demanded two weeks time is not true or correct and hence denied. When the complainant informed that she is ready to take delivery of the vehicle the Red Colour vehicle was not available at that time. But opposite parties had informed that if the complainant is ready to take another colour available with opposite parties 1 & 2 they can deliver the same or she has to wait till the red colour is arrived. But meanwhile she informed that she wanted the vehicle on the price prevailed at the time of booking. But opposite parties had informed that she has to pay the price prevailed at the time invoicing which would be done only after the full payment and the same was clearly shown in the Order Booking Form. The allegation that the enhancement of price was not informed to the complainant earlier and even at the time of booking the car it was not informed to complainant that they have to pay the increased price if there is any increase and it amounts to deficiency of service is not true or correct and hence denied. At the time of booking itself opposite parties had informed the complainant that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is only an advance amount and they have to pay the actual price prevailing at the time of delivery of the vehicle fixed by the Maruti as the price of the vehicle is fixed by the manufacturer only. In the Order Booking Form also the said aspect was clearly mentioned. The contra allegation are not true or correct. Opposite partis are only a dealer of Maruti and the price of every vehicle is fixed by Maruti. The allegation of the complaint that the complainant had agreed to pay the increased amount and at that time the Assistant Manager of the opposite partis had informed the complainant that the Red Colour car which was booked was not available as it was given to some other person and she was asked to take a car with another colour to which the complainant declined is not true or correct and hence denied. When the vehicle allotted to the complainant was ready they were not ready to take the vehicle and so the same was allotted to the next customer in the seniority list as the opposite parties being a dealer could not hold the said vehicle for the complainant for an indefinite period. Even though the opposite parties had offered a car with a different colour the same was not acceptable to the complainant. The allegation of the complainant that opposite parties had asked to wait for another period of eight months as she had lost her seniority and also to get the car with her colour choice is not true or correct. Opposite parties had told the complainant that if she is ready to take the vehicle opposite parties can arrange a car with a different colour or else she has to wait till the red colour car is reached and not for eight months as alleged. The intension of the complainant is to get the vehicle on the price prevailed at the time of booking. The complainant is legally entitled to get back the advance amount paid for the car and so opposite parties had repeatedly requested the complainant to collect the advance amount and cancelling the booking if she is not interested in the vehicle. But the complainant without accepting the advance amount had approached this Forum only for accusing opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for Rs. 25,000/- or for any amount as compensation from opposite parties. No hardships had been caused to the complainant. It is the complainant who had not accepted the allotted vehicle when informed by opposite parties and it is the complainant who had not accepted the advance amount back even after repeated requests of opposite parties and so the complainant is not entitled for any interest on the advance amount. The opposite parties are ready to return the advance amount to the complainant.
3. Points raised:
(i) Whether the complainant is eligible to get back the advance amount?
(ii) Whether she is eligible for any other reliefs as prayed?
4. Points (i) & (ii): Complainant filed affidavit along with 4 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. Opposite party after filing the version, not even cared to file affidavit to substantiate their version or to adduce any evidence. Perused the documents and pleadings of both sides.
5. Complainant approached this Forum claiming refund of the booking amount (Rs. 10,000/-) her husband had paid for a Maruti Swift Car with red colour. The tentative period fixed for delivery of the same was 5 months and the opposite parties’ failed to deliver the same by the end of 5 months. When the car was ready for delivery, complainant was in a pathetic situation after the sad demise of her husband. So she asked the opposite party to hold the car and she will approach them. But when the complainant expressed her willingness to take delivery the car was already delivered to another person and she was offered another colour, to which she was not amenable. For getting the red colour she was asked to wait for another period. So she decided to cancel the booking and requested for refund of the booking amount, which the opposite parties’ declined and so she is eligible for interest. She is eligible to get interest at the rate of 9% till the date of realization.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to refund Rs. 10,000/- with 9% interest from the date of deposit (19/12/2011) within a month of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is eligible for 12% interest from the date of default till the date of realization. No order on cost and compensation.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 5th day of January, 2017.
Sd/- LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/- P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-R. SATHI : MEMBER
Ad.
C.C. No: 293/2012
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : N I L
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of Order booking / Commitment Checklist dated 19/12/2011
P2 : Copy of receipt dated 20/12/2011 of Indus Motor Co.Pvt. Ltd.
P3 : Copy of Advocate notice to the Manager, Indus Motors dated 02/08/2012
P4 : Acknowledgement card
III. Opposite parties’ witness : N I L
IV. Opposite parties’ documents : N I L
Sd/- PRESIDENT
Ad.
