w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Kallim v/s Shriram Automobiles & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- N E C C AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC043600

Company & Directors' Information:- C M AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300CH2005PTC028233

Company & Directors' Information:- J P M AUTOMOBILES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC068910

Company & Directors' Information:- K N AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50404OR2013PTC016730

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND K AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50401JK2004PTC002447

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300RJ2009PTC028204

Company & Directors' Information:- K N R AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300WB2006PTC111199

Company & Directors' Information:- K P AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50404JH2012PTC000824

Company & Directors' Information:- Y J AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50401MP2013PTC031920

Company & Directors' Information:- N S AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50102MH2012PTC226814

Company & Directors' Information:- S K S AUTOMOBILES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50100TZ2009PTC014979

Company & Directors' Information:- J D AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U34300WB1987PTC042066

Company & Directors' Information:- B K AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50200AP2009PTC064484

Company & Directors' Information:- N. K. AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50102GJ2006PTC049307

Company & Directors' Information:- G M S AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50101DL1997PTC089284

Company & Directors' Information:- N U AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013126

Company & Directors' Information:- D K AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29246CH1989PTC009607

Company & Directors' Information:- K Y AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50400JK2021PTC012549

Company & Directors' Information:- A K AUTOMOBILES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U34100WB1984PLC038001

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51103DL1997PTC085147

Company & Directors' Information:- M. H. AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50200HP2015PTC000946

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071719

Company & Directors' Information:- R. J. AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50100BR2020PTC047409

Company & Directors' Information:- M R AUTOMOBILES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300DL1998PTC094488

Company & Directors' Information:- V. M. AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U35911UP1995PTC018136

Company & Directors' Information:- P D AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50400RJ2021PTC074633

Company & Directors' Information:- A R AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50404PY2011PTC002555

Company & Directors' Information:- K P V AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U50300KL1991PTC006035

Company & Directors' Information:- J B S AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34101OR2005PTC008397

Company & Directors' Information:- S. N. S. AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50500WB2018PTC224868

Company & Directors' Information:- M P AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U50404MP1957PTC000842

Company & Directors' Information:- G. E. AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50400DL2018PTC341171

Company & Directors' Information:- P K AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U50300UP1979PTC004841

Company & Directors' Information:- P L AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300RJ2014PTC046516

Company & Directors' Information:- S G K R AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60210TN1960PTC004283

Company & Directors' Information:- N R AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50400MH2014PTC255882

Company & Directors' Information:- S. N. J. AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50400MH2017PTC299238

Company & Directors' Information:- M R K AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50102UP2011PTC045868

Company & Directors' Information:- I B AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29253DL2008PTC172205

Company & Directors' Information:- T K AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC017940

Company & Directors' Information:- V R AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34200DL2007PTC170076

Company & Directors' Information:- K T AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999UP1959PTC002730

Company & Directors' Information:- M B AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U35923WB1966PTC026743

Company & Directors' Information:- B M AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50200DL2007PTC162611

Company & Directors' Information:- H A AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34102DL2007PTC163030

Company & Directors' Information:- P A AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34101DL2007PTC161483

Company & Directors' Information:- K G AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34200DL2007PTC162859

Company & Directors' Information:- P R AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34201DL2007PTC161053

Company & Directors' Information:- AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC000916

    First Appeal No. 496 of 2010 In Complaint Case No. 38 of 2009

    Decided On, 23 September 2014

    At, Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Aurangabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. S.M. SHEMBOLE
    By, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. K.B. GAWALI
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: M.K. Deshpande, Advocate. For the Respondents: R.D. Khadap, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. This appeal is filed by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2009 passed by District Forum, Beed in consumer complaint No.38/2009 whereby the complaint is partly allowed by holding the respondent i.e. original opponents as liable for deficiency in service. The respondent no.1 is the agent of respondent no.2 who is a dealer of vehicles. For better understanding the appellant is hereinafter termed as the 'complainant', whereas the respondent no.1 as the 'opponent agent' and respondent no.2 as 'opponent dealer'.

2. The factual aspect of this case in a nutshell are that:

The complainant with intention of purchase Mahindra Mini Bus for livelihood of his family approached the opponent agent who gave the information about Mahindra tourist 25 sitter mini bus of the model of B.S- 2 and B.S-3. Accordingly the complainant decided to purchase the model of B.S.-3 mini bus. That, the opponent agent gave the information about amount of quotation of Rs.7,66,000/- in respect of mini bus-B.S.-3 and told the complainant to deposit amount of Rs.83,545/- to the Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Company at Latur for getting loan amount. It was also told to the complainant that as per the companies scheme he would get a discount of Rs.40,000/- against the priceoftotal Rs.7,66,000/-. That, accordingly complainant paid the amount of his share of Rs.83,545/- indifferent installments upto 06.09.2007 to the said fianc company at Latur. Thereafter the opponent no.1 as per the powers given to him by the opponent no.2 issued him the quotation no. 742 dated 08.09.2007 and also tax invoice bearing bill no.VSL0000159 mentioning therein the model number as Mahindra Tourist 25 sitter B.S.-3 Mini Bus. That, this quotation is handed over to the finance company at Latur on the basis of which he was sanctioned loan of Rs.6,85,333/- and taken into account of the amount Rs.83,545/- deposited by him, the said company issued DD of Rs.7,68,878/- in favour of opponent dealer and accordingly he was given possession by vehicle mini bus as on 10.09.2007 along with service book.

3. It is contended by the complainant that in the said service book the model of mini bus mentioned as B.S.-2. That, when this fact was brought to the notice of opponent agent it was told that the same might be the printing mistake. That, thereafter a temporary certificate of registration was issued by the R.T.O, Ahmednagar on 12.09.2007 and permanent registration was done at R.T.O. Pune on the instruction of opponent agent and dealer on 20.10.2007 and registration number was given as MH.12/EF-3995, and on the same date the R.T.O, Pune issued him sanctioned order for running the vehicle in Pune city wherein the model of mini bus mentioned as B.S.-3. It was further contended that at the time of first servicing of the said vehicle at Ahmednagar the concern staff members from the said service centre told him that his mini bus was of the model B.S.-2. But he got the same confirmed on 28.06.2008 when said vehicle was repaired from the authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Company by name Rajendra Motors. He therefore contended that opponent agent and the dealer have cheated him by giving the model of B.S.-2 instead of B.S.-3 of the mini bus. He has therefore contacted the opponent agent and claimed the discount of Rs.40,000/-. However he neglected the same. He further contended that he had to get the said vehicle repair in private garage on his own cost of Rs.45,000/-. That, during the repair of the said vehicle he could not use the same and therefore he had to sustain loss of income of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant had therefore issued a legal notice dated 30.11.2008 to both the opponents and claimed total compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- which included discount of Rs.40,000/-, cost of repair Rs.45,000/-, loss of income Rs.50,000/-, mental harassment Rs.20,000/- and deficiency in service of Rs.25,000/-. The notice was replied by the opponents on 21.12.2008 in which it was admitted by them that the mini bus model of B.S.-2 was given to him. He therefore filed complaint before District Forum seeking directions against opponents agent and dealer to pay him Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and had also sought replacement of said B.S.-2 model by B.S.-3.

4. There is no copy of the written version of the opponent agent submitted by the complainant along with this appeal. However from the perusal of the impugned judgment and order it appears that the opponent has filed written version whereby the complaint of the complainant was resisted by the opponents. The opponent dealer had given reply dated 19.12.2008 to the notice issued by complainant in which it is submitted by the opponent dealer that the complainant had booked the B.S.-2 model, ex-showroom price of which was given as per quotation dated 08.09.2007 @ Rs.7,26,000/- for B.S.-3 model. It was further submitted that the complainant after using the said vehicle for 15 months has come with the complaint about change of model as B.S.-2 instead B.S.-3. In fact, the B.S.-2 model was sold to the complainant and therefore there is no deficiency in service or cheating as alleged by the complainant.

5. The District Forum after going through the evidence on record as field by both the parties and also after hearing them has partly allowed the complaint and directed the opponents to pay to the complainant jointly and severally a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards mental harassment within a period of one month, failing which it was directed to pay interest @ 7% p.a. It is held by the District Forum that on the tax invoice dated 08.09.2007 the opponents have mentioned the model number as B.S.-3 then in the registration book issued by the RTO, Pune the model is mentioned as 03 and further in the sanctioned order for running the said vehicle in the Pune city issued by RTO, Pune, the model is also mentioned as B.S.-3. However, the opponents by their reply to the notice given by the complainant, they have admitted that the complainant has purchased B.S.-2 model and not B.S.-3. It is therefore held by the District Forum that both the opponents have committed deficiency in service by selling the B.S.-2 model instead of B.S.- 3 for which the complainant had paid the consideration to them. It is however further held that the complainant could not prove the amount of discount of Rs.40,000/- of B.S.-2 model and further no evidence regarding repairs in the private garage of this bus of the said vehicle has been produced by the complainant and accordingly his claim for the said discount amount of Rs.40,000/- was rejected. Thus keeping with these observations the District Forum has passed the impugned judgment and order awarding Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards deficiency in service in supplying the B.S.-2 model instead of B.S.-3 and further compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental harassment etc.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order present appeal is filed in this Commission by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. This appeal came to be finally heard on 12.09.2014. Adv. Shri. M.K. Deshpande for appellant and Adv. Shri. R.D. Khadap for the respondent were present. They have already submitted their written notes of argument. We also heard them finally and appeal was adjourned for judgment.

7. We have thoughtfully considered the papers as made available before us and also the arguments submitted by the counsel of both the parties. There are two major grievances of the complainant against the impugned order. They are- i) Although the District Forum has concluded that the opponents have committed deficiency in service by providing him B.S.-2 model instead of B.S-3 and secondly, the amount of discount Rs.40,000/- along with other compensation as claimed in the complaint has not been considered by the District Forum.

8. From the perusal of the certain documents i.e. tax invoice dated 08.09.2007, the name of the model of the said bus is mentioned as B.S.-3 and the cost of the vehicle is given Rs.7,26,000/- after deducting there from discount as per the scheme of Rs.40,000/-, the R.C.Book has issued by the RTO, Pune, wherein the model of the bus is mentioned as EURO-3 and in the sanctioned order dated 19.10.2007 for running the vehicle in Pune city the model number is mentioned as B.S.-3. It is evident that the complainant has purchased the model B.S.-3, however as admitted by the opponent dealer in the reply to the notice given by the complainant B.S.-2 model was given to the complainant. However the complainant for the first time by his notice dated 30.11.2007 made complaint to the opponent about the alleged change of model from B.S.-3 to B.S.-2. In fact, the complainant has taken possession of the said bus as submitted by him in his complaint on 10.09.2007 i.e. after using the vehicle for 14 months. The question is why the complainant has accepted the B.S.-2 model when he had purchased B.S.-3 as on 10.09.2007. In any case the District Forum has considered this aspect and awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- for change in the model.

9. As regards the complainants claim for compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- which included Rs.40,000/- as a discount. However it is observed that the Ex-showroom price of the model B.S.-3 mini bus as per the tax invoice dated 08.09.2007 is given as Rs.7,26,000/- i.e. after deducting Rs.40,000/- as a discount price, which means the complainant was already given discount of Rs.40,000/-. It is also to be noted that in the notice dated 30.11.2008 the complainant himself has admitted that he has purchased the B.S.-3 mini bus by paying the price of Rs.7,26,000/-. It means although according to the complainant the price of the said vehicle was Rs.7,66,000/-. He has actually paid Rs.7,26,000/- by deducting the discounted amount Rs.40,000/-.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

The learned counsel Shri. M. K. Deshpande in his written notes of arguments submitted that the complainant has paid total amount of Rs.7,68,878/-. However there is no any documentary evidence produced by the complainant to show that this amount is paid and was actually received by the opponents. Hence the said claim cannot be considered. The other claims of compensation towards repairs and loss of income etc. also the said has not been justified as observed by the District Forum and hence cannot be accepted. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and observations, in absence of any cogent evidence in support of claim of the complainant we find that the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum towards deficiency in service in providing the B.S.-2 model instead of B.S.-3 and towards harassment etc. appears to be quite just and proper. Hence there is no reason to interfere the reasoned order. The appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order. ORDER 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
O R