SATHEESAN N. vs G.M., M.G.F. (INDIA) LIMITED

THIS a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1,03,843.12. As per the quotation dated 6-3-91, the opposite party agreed to sell Tata Diesel Vehicle Mode No. 1210 Se/C with heavy duties axles to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 3,39,000/- The opposite party delivered the vehicle on 29-5-91. The price of vehicle amounting to Rs. 3,39,000 was paid by the complainant on 30-3-91. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party agreed to deliver the vehicle within 3 days from the date of payment. The complainant claimed that he is entitled to get interest at the rate of 18 per cent for the amount of Rs. 3,39,000/- paid by him. However the opposite party paid only Rs. 4,792/- towards interest. It is also the case of the complainant that the opposite party was liable to deliver 7 wheel, jack, wheel-spanner or tool kit, but the opposite party delivered only 6 wheels and no jack wheel, spanner or tool kit was supplied by the opposite party. The complainant alleged that these parts are not available in the open Market and by reason of the failure of the opposite party to supply these items he could not register the vehicle till 10-9-91. The complainant also could not ply the vehicle to long distances due to the failure of the opposite party to supply one wheel, jack, wheel spanner and tool kit. Another grievance of the complainant is that an additional amount of Rs. 771.62 was collected from the complainant on the date of delivery, which he is not bound to pay and this amount also is liable to be refunded, to the complainant. The has claimed an amount of Rs. 40,000/- as loss of income due to non-use of the vehicle because of non-registration. Another item of claim is travel to Ernakulam and Telephone expenses of Rs. 3,000/-. Yet another sum of Rs. 25,000/- is claimed as compensation for mental and physical strain and hardship. For loss of income due to non-delivery of vehicle from 30-3-91 to 29-5-91 he has claimed Rs. 20,000/-. Another amount of 10,000/- is claimed to cover the loss incurred by the complainant due to disability to ply the vehicle to long distances.

A version was filed by the opposite party, it is contended that the complainant has purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and therefore the complainant is not a consumer. There is also a general denial of allegations, but no specific averments have been made controverting the various items of claims made by the complainant. The complainant was examined as PW 1 and he has generally spoken in terms of the allegations contended in the complaint. The complainant stated that he is a driver by profession and the purchase was intended for self-employment. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore was also examined as P.W. 2. He deposed that the Bank has advanced the loan under the self-employment scheme to the complainant. The learned Counsel for the Opp. Party heavily relied on Exbt. P8, in support of the contention that the purchase was for a commercial transaction and it was not intented for self-employment. Exbt. P8 is an agreement executed by the complainant with one Hari Kumar. It is dated 23rd March, 1991 i.e., before the purchase. Under the agreement the complainant agreed to hire the vehicle proposed to be purchased to Satheesan for the contract work he had taken from Sreekariam Panchayat. It was stated therein that Satheesan will give 10,000/- Rupees per month as hiring charge. Exbt. P8 is pressed into service to contend that the transaction is purely a commercial transaction and is not intended for self-employment. PW 1 explained that he is a driver, that the arrangement was he would work as the driver of the vehicle and this agreement was executed only to enable him to discharge the liability of loan taken from the bank without difficulty. We are inclined to believe the testimony of PW 1. His evidence has been corroborated by the evidence of PW 2 who clearly stated the advance was made for self-employment by the bank. In the circumstances we have no hesitation to overrule the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Opp. Party.

It has come out in evidence that the Opp. Party has agreed to pay interest on the amount paid. As a matter of fact, the Opp. Party sent a cheque for Rs. 4,792 to cover the interest. Interest on the amount was paid on 30.3.91 and the complainant received the interest without prejudice to his claim for enhanced interest. Complainant had to get for the period from 30.3.91 to 29.5.91. Both parties agreed that it would work out to Rs. 6,687. The complainant will be entitled to get the balance of Rs. 10,000/-.

IT has not been denied and as a matter of fact admitted that the complainant has been supplied with only 6 wheels instead of 7 wheels and the Opp. Party has not supplied jack, wheel spanner, and tool kit. The evidence disclosed that the complainant was entitled to get these items. In these circumstances the complainant will be entitled to get the prices one wheel, a jack, wheel spanner and a tool kit. We, have only material regarding the price of wheel which shows it is Rs. 4375/-. In addition to this amount of Rs. 4375/- which is the price of a wheel the Opp. Party will also pay the price of jack, wheel spanner and tool kit. There is considerable controversy between the parties on the question whether the delay to register the vehicle was due to the non-availability of one wheel, jack, wheel spanner and tool kit which were not supplied by the Opp. Party at the time when the vehicle was delivered. It is not the case of the complainant that these items were delivered and thereafter only the vehicle was registered before the Regional Transport Officer. We are not inclined to believe the testimony of the complainer that the delay was due to the non-availability of these items. It is common knowledge that after getting the Chasis, some reasonable time will be taken for body building. The complainant has claimed compensation for 4 months stating that he was deprived of income during the period by reason of non-supply of these items. We are of the view that the registration was not delayed by reason of non-supply of items. We therefore reject the claim of Rs. 40,000/- on this account.

THERE was a price hike after the booking of the vehicle and Rs. 771.62 was collected to cover the difference as a result of the price hike. Ext. P4 invoice shows that price is subject to change. That would mean that the complainant is liable to pay the difference, if there is a subsequent price hike after the booking. We therefore reject that claim also. The complainant has claimed Rs. 20,000/- as loss of income due to non-delivery of vehicle from 30.3.91 to 29.5.91. We do not find any undue delay in delivering the vehicle. In the circumstances we reject this claim also. There is a claim for Rs. 10,000/- to cover the alleged loss of Rs. 5,000/- per mensum by reason of the difficulty of the complainant to ply the vehicle to long distances by reason of failure to supply some of the items referred to above. We are not impressed that there is any merit in this claim. No evidence has been adduced to substantiate this claim. Nor is there any evidence to indicate that he had to spend Rs. 3,000/- to travel to Ernakulam and for Telephone expenses. In the circumstances we are unable to allow this claim as well.

THE amount of 25,000/- has been claimed as compensation for mental and physical strain and hardship because of the failure to supply items mentioned above. THE complainant must have suffered some mental pain and agony. But the claim is exhorbitant. We accordingly award a sum of Rs. 2000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship. THE complainant had to approach the Forum for relief. In the circumstances we feel that he should be awarded a compensation of Rs. 500 as cost. THE complainant is disposed of above. THE Opp. Party will pay the amount directed to be paid within period of one month from today. If payment is not made within that period he will be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% on the above amounts till payment. Complaint allowed.