BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 217/2011 Filed on 23.06.2011

Dated : 16.04.2012

Complainant :

G.K. Sankaran Nair, Madavoor Puthen Veedu, Madavoor, Pallickal P.O, Pin-695 602.

(By adv. V.K. Sureshkumar)

Opposite party :

The Managing Director, Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd., Cordial Tower, Near St. Mary's School, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. P.K. Aboobacker & C.S. Raj Mohan)

This O.P having been heard on 24 .03.2012, the Forum on 16.04.2012 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant in this case paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as advance for a Swift Dzire VDI on 06.12.2010 to the opposite party. The opposite party has assured that the vehicle will be got within 6 months of its booking date. But the opposite party did not deliver the vehicle to the complainant instead of his repeated requests. The opposite party's reply for the reason of delay in supplying the vehicle was that there was strike in the company. The complainant denied that excuse. As per the complainant the vehicle ought to have to get him before strike i.e; on 05.06.2011. The complainant further alleges that at the time of advance payment the on road price of the vehicle was Rs. 6,80,550/-. But thereafter there was a hike of Rs. 14,000/- in the price. The complainant further states that for purchasing the vehicle he has availed a loan if the vehicle would have to get in time, 2% bank interest ought to have diminished. Complainant filed this complaint before this Forum for the redressal of all his grievances.

The opposite party Indus Motors filed their version contending the entire allegations levelled against them. In the version opposite party submitted that the statement that the opposite party had promised to deliver the vehicle within 6 months is absolutely false. The opposite party had not given such an assurance. The tentative period of delivery of the vehicle is only shown as 6 months in the Order Booking Form. At the time of booking itself it is stated that the period of 6 months mentioned in the order booking form is only a tentative period and the same may vary due to different reasons and the complainant had agreed to that and he had signed the form after knowing that. The opposite party is only the dealer of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. who is the manufacturer. In the terms and conditions printed on the overleaf of the printed booking form, Clause (1) says “At the time of booking customers are required to deposit 'C' form price of the vehicle and payment towards local sales tax, dealer margin etc. should only be paid at the time of taking delivery”. Likewise clause (2) of the terms and conditions of sale sys “vehicles will be delivered strictly on the order of customer booking subject to payment and other formalities. Approximate delivery period given in the order booking form is only indicative. Vehicle delivery is however subject to availability of vehicle. We will not be responsible for any delay in the delivery of the vehicle due to any unforeseen circumstances”. Again Clause (3) says “Prices and schemes prevailing at the time of invoicing of the vehicle will be applicable”. The said period as stated in the terms and conditions are only indicative and the dealer can deliver the vehicle only subject to the dispatching of the vehicle from the manufacturer as mentioned in the order booking form. Opposite party further states that the allegation that the opposite party had assured the on road price as Rs. 6,80,550/- is not correct. In the order booking form itself it is shown that the on road booking price as Rs. 6,90,000/- which is the then on road price which may vary on the basis of the prevailing price at the time of invoicing the vehicle. The opposite party 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. In the meantime a labour strike had occurred in the company and so the delivery of all the vehicles was delayed due to that unforeseen circumstance. Opposite party further states that the allegation in the complaint that this opposite party had breached the terms of purchase and committed unfair trade practice, delay are absolutely false and unsustainable. The opposite party had never violated any of the terms mentioned in the terms and conditions printed on the overleaf of the order booking form. At the same time the complainant had signed the order booking form on 06.12.2010 after undertaking that he had read and understood the enclosed terms and conditions of booking and sale and accepted the same. So he cannot now turn round and say that this opposite party had violated the terms and conditions. Hence the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs to the opposite party.

Points to be ascertained:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?

2. If so, reliefs and costs.

Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1. From his side 8 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P8. The opposite party has also filed affidavit and examined him as DW1. From his side 3 documents were marked. The complainant made the payment of the booking amount of Rs. 50,000/- for the vehicle on 06.12.2010. Ext. P1 is the evidence for that payment. There is no dispute with regard to this matter. No terms and conditions of any assurance are seen in this document. The complainant's case is that at the time of booking the opposite party assured him that the vehicle will be given within 6 months. But the opposite party did not deliver the vehicle even at the time of filing this complaint. Ext. P2 is the copy of letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 23.04.2011. In that letter the opposite party assured the complainant their sincere efforts to deliver the vehicle at the earliest and they expressed their regret for the inconvenience. In that letter the opposite party mistakenly mentioned the booking date as 12.08.2010 instead of 06.12.2010. Ext. P3 is the copy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party on 07.06.2011. Ext. P4 is the copy of terms and conditions issued by the opposite party to the complainant. As per this document, on road price of the vehicle is seen as Rs. 6,85,050/-. In this document the following terms and conditions were seen “Price and scheme at the time of delivery will be applicable. Dzire VDI Biege. The waiting period for your vehicle is 6 months. Note: Committed waiting period of the vehicle may vary due to delay of consignment truck in transit”. From this document we can see that the opposite party has not given assurance to deliver the vehicle within 6 months, that is the tentative period of delivery of the vehicle may vary due to delay of consignment truck in transit. In Ext. P4 itself we can see the condition that “price and scheme at the time of delivery will be applicable”. Ext. P5 is the paper cutting showing that there was strike on Maruti Suzuki on 04.06.2011. The opposite party's contention in this case is that due to strike in Maruti company the delivery of the vehicle got delayed. The complainant's argument is that the strike was on 04.06.2011, the vehicle ought to be delivered to him on 05.06.2011, i.e; From Manesar to Thiruvananthapuram the truck has taken 12 to 13 days. Then the vehicle should be in transit before the commencement of strike. But at the time of evidence he deposed that “സമരം എന്ന് തുടങ്ങിയെന്നോ സമരം എന്ന് തീര്‍ന്നെന്നോ P5 -ല്‍ ഇല്ല (Q) ഇല്ല (A). Ext. P6 is the copy of letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant. In that letter opposite party stated that “due to unforeseen circumstance the delivery of your vehicle will take some more time. This has been a major concern across the country. MSIL has taken steps to reduce the waiting period and the supplies may improve in a couple of months. As per the latest communication from MSIL, we will be in a position to deliver your vehicle by the end of October 2011”. From this letter we find that there is no wilful delay from the side of opposite party, the dealer. It is the manufacturer who supplied the vehicle to the dealer. Ext. P7 is the e-mail communication with regard to the complaint of non-delivery of the car after the waiting period. Ext. P8 is the copy of agreement for sale of complainant's vehicle dated 09.04.2011. Complainant stated that in order to buy the new vehicle he sold his old car. But he had to wait more time for getting the car and for that reason he has suffered huge inconvenience. From this document we find that the complainant sold his car on 09.04.2011, but booked the disputed vehicle only on 06.12.2011 i.e after 8 months. In this case at the time of trial i.e on 05.10.2011 the opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant. At the time of taking evidence complainant states that “വണ്ടി തന്നു പക്ഷേ വണ്ടിയുടെ colour clear biege ആണ് book ചെയ്തത്, തന്നത് Ecru biege ആണ്”. There is no pleadings in the complaint regarding this matter. At the time of cross examination complainant deposed that “വാഹനം 05.10.2011-ല്‍ കൈപ്പറ്റിയപ്പോള്‍ ആയതിനെ സംബന്ധിച്ച് നിങ്ങള്‍ യാതൊരു പരാതിയും പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല എന്നും ആയതിനാല്‍ ഈ പരാതിക്ക് യാതൊരു വ്യവഹാര കാരണവും സംഭവിച്ചിട്ടില്ല എന്ന് പറയുന്നു (Q) ഞാന്‍ വാഹനം സന്തോഷത്തോടെ എടുത്തു. Delay ഉള്ളതു കൊണ്ട് grievance ഉണ്ട് (A)”. The complainant admitted the signature on Ext. D1 series. In this case the opposite party denied the entire allegations levelled against them by oral and documentary evidence. As per Ext. D1 series order booking form which was marked through the complainant, on road price of the vehicle is Rs. 6,90,000/-. In that document itself it is noted that “vehicle price prevailing at the time of invoicing of vehicle shall be applicable. The above price as prevailing at the time of booking. The same may change at the time of invoice”. In the complaint the complainant stated that at the time of booking on road price was Rs. 6,85,050/-, that is not correct. Ext. P1 is not the copy of original order booking form. In this case the opposite party had not given any assurance that the vehicle will be delivered within 6 months. The tentative period of delivery of the vehicle is only shown as 6 months in the order booking form. As per terms and conditions clause (2) “vehicle delivery will however be subjected to availability of vehicles. We will not be responsible for any delay in the delivery of vehicle due to any unforeseen circumstance”. The complainant admitted his signature in Ext. D1 series. In this case the delay occurred due to the delay in supplying the vehicle is an unforeseen incident. The complainant in this case admitted the strike. There is no wilful delay or negligence happened from the side of opposite party. And moreover it is the manufacturer who supply the vehicle to the dealers. But the manufacturer has not been made a party in this case. The complainant has not a case that the opposite party has supplied the vehicle to overtake the seniority basis. From the above mentioned discussions and the evidences adduced by both parties, we find that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. It is true that the complainant has suffered too much mental agony, but there is no wilful fault or negligence from the side of opposite party. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

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 16^th day of April 2012.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 217/2011

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Sankaran Nair. G.K

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of receipt dated 06.12.2010 for Rs. 50,000/-.

P2 - Copy of letter dated 23.04.2011 issued by opposite party to

complainant.

P3 - Copy of notice dated 07.06.2011 issued by complainant to

opposite party.

P4 - Copy of terms and conditions issued by opposite party.

P5 - Paper cutting showing strike in Maruti company

P6 - Copy of letter issued by opposite party to complainant

P7 - E-mail communications with regard to complaint of non-

delivery of vehicle.

P8 - Copy of agreement for sale of vehicle dated 09.04.2011

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Deepak. S

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of Order Booking Form/Commitment Checklist

D2 - Copy of Tax/Vehicle Invoice dated 01.10.2011

D3 - Original Tax/Vehicle Invoice ( 4 Nos.)

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb