DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 27^th day March, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

            : Smt.Vidya A., Member           

            : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member          Date of filing: 23/11/2021   

CC/203/2021

Anitha.M

D/o Mayinkutty

Vrindavan House, Puthankulam

Nemmara, Chittur Taluk 

Palakkad -678 508

(By Adv. Shaik Abdulla)                                        -      Complainant

Vs

The Proprietor

Amana Toyota, V. P. K Motors

Poriyani, Mundur

Palakkad -678 592                                                 -     Opposite party

(By Adv. A.A.Abdulla)

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.

1.  Pleadings of the Complainant.

The complainant booked for a Toyota Crysta Full Option Car with the opposite party paying Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance.  According to the complainant, the executive of the opposite party had assured that the vehicle would be delivered by the first week of December, 2020 (wrongly mentioned as 2021 in the complaint).  The opposite party couldn't deliver the vehicle even by March, 2021.  When she demanded for the refund of the advance amount, the manager and other staff of the opposite party promised her that the delivery will happen before 30^th of March.  On 28^th March, she was informed that the vehicle is ready and she paid on 30/03/2021, the entire invoice price of the vehicle, accessories & additional work as demanded by the opposite party.  On 02/04/2021, when the complainant went to the show room for taking delivery of the vehicle, it was found that the additional work and fitting of accessories were not done as promised.  Since the vehicle was urgently needed, the complainant had to take delivery of the vehicle as it was.

Another allegation is about the registration of the vehicle.  At the time of delivery it was informed that temporary registration has been taken for the vehicle and the vehicle can be used with this temporary number till the fancy number KL-70-G-70 is allotted.  Further, the opposite party failed to make the payment of vehicle tax and insurance premium in time and to get the fancy number and vehicle was registered without fancy number and without the consent of the complainant, forging her signature in the registration forms.

Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking replacement with same model vehicle or refund of the price Rs. 32,87,399/- along with interest @18% pa along with Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation apart from cost.

2.   Notice was issued to the opposite party.

They entered appearance and filed version.

Their contentions are

1. The cheque given towards the advance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- got bounced and they received  the amount only on 18/01/2021.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to get the vehicle in December, 2020 as alleged in the complaint.
2. The opposite party had informed that the balance amount payable at the time of delivery inclusive of accessories would be 28.25 lakhs.  The complainant had informed that Rs. 8.90 lakhs will be paid before delivery and finance is being arranged for the balance amount. Accordingly order was placed with the manufacturer.  When the vehicle was ready, finance was arranged from M/s Toyota Financial Services to the extent of Rs. 19,42,750/-.  When the complainant was asked to pay the amounts for tax, accessories and insurance, the complainant requested to deliver the vehicle after taking temporary permit, the opposite party informed that vehicle can't be delivered without paying tax and taking temporary permit.  As requested by the husband of the complainant a symbolic delivery function was arranged on 31/03/2021 and the vehicle was taken to her house by the staff of opposite party using the Trade certificate issued for the vehicle.
3. When the vehicle was at the residence of the opposite party, the complainant's husband tactfully took the key of the vehicle.  Hence the staff of the opposite party had to leave the vehicle at the residence of the complainant.
4. Regarding the accessories, the opposite party had collected Rs.40,000/- from the complainant against which, additional work & accessories worth Rs. 42,653/- had been done by the opposite party.
5. The complainant had issued a cheque dated 30/03/2021 for the amount of Rs. 8.90 lakhs mentioned above, but the cheque got bounced for the reason "Signature differs".  Inspite of repeated phone calls and follow up the complainant didn't make any arrangements for paying the said amount.  Hence the opposite party filed a complaint with the Kongad police station and due to the intervention of police, the complainant paid Rs. 8.00 lakhs on 17/04/2021 and Rs. 76,870/- on 28/04/2021.  On the same day the opposite party paid Rs. 5,13,660/- as road tax and completed the process of  temporary registration and given the certificate to the complainant.
6. The complainant had not given the insurance premium amount to the opposite party, but had agreed to pay it directly to the insurance company.
7. In the matter of Fancy number, it is the responsibility of the vehicle owner to apply for the same online.  The responsibility of the dealer is to mention the same while uploading the data for registration, which has been done by them.  The opposite party has used only the forms & documents duly signed by the complainant as handed over by her husband for registration.

3.  Issues framed

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in delaying delivery of car?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in failure to get fancy registration number?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs sought for?
4. Reliefs & costs if any?

4.   The complainant failed to file proof affidavit or mark any documents in evidence. The complainant had been continuously absent on 18/11/2022, 03/01/2023, 09/02/2023 & 15/03/2023 and hence the case was taken for orders based on merits.

5.  Issues 1 to 3

As per section 38(6) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the District Commissions has to decide the cases on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record.  Hence, in the absence of proof affidavit and any documentary evidence from the part of the complainant, this Commission is not in a position to decide the merits of the case and to reach a conclusion as to whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant has failed to prove her case.

Issue 4

Resultantly the complaint is dismissed.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief.

Pronounced in open court on this the 27^th day of March, 2023.

                                                                                                Sd/-           

                                                                              Vinay Menon V

                                                      President 

                                                                Sd/-

                                                       Vidya A

                                 Member 

                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                   Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                         Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the Complainant: Nil

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined- Nil

Cost- Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.