SURESH RAJ Vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, ST ANTHONYS MOTORS INDIA LTD. & 2 ORS.

The petitioner/complainant booked a car with the respondent making an initial payment of Rs.5,000/- followed by an additional payment of Rs.91,000/-. He thus paid a total sum of Rs.96,000/- though the price of the car was Rs.1,98,216/-. The case of the complainant/petitioner is that the respondent had promised to deliver the vehicle on 11.03.2011 which he considered to be an auspicious day but when he reached the showroom of the respondent on that date to take the delivery of the vehicle, an additional amount of Rs.2,500/- towards handling charges was demanded from him. Since he did not pay the aforesaid amount, the car was not delivered to him. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum seeking refund of the amount paid by him alongwith compensation etc.

The complaint was resisted by the respondents who inter-alia alleged that in addition to the showroom price of Rs.1,98,216/-, the petitioner/complainant was required to pay other charges such as road tax, insurance, temporary registration fee etc. thereby making a total sum of Rs.2,06,443/- exclusive of road tax but the complainant did not agree to pay the said amount and wanted to pay only Rs.1,98,216/- which was the ex-showroom price of the vehicle. It was pointed out in the written version filed by the respondents that the vehicle was already registered in the name of the complainant who abandoned the same by not taking its delivery.

The District Forum directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.96,000/- which it had received from the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on that amount. Being aggrieved from the order, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 22.04.2016, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that the vehicle was not ready for delivery to the complainant on 11.03.2011, no such allegation was made in the complaint wherein the case set out by the complainant was that when he went to take delivery of the vehicle, an additional amount of Rs.2,500/- towards handling charges was demanded from him. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the vehicle was not available for delivery of the complainant/petitioner on 11.03.2011.

There is no documentary evidence of the respondent having agreed to sell the vehicle to the complainant for an all exclusive price of Rs.1,98,216/-. It was clarified in the written version filed by the respondent that the above referred price was for the ex-showroom price and therefore, the other charges such as road tax, insurance etc. were required to be paid by the complainant. By not paying the balance amount of Rs.2,06,443/- which was the on-road price of the vehicle, the petitioner/complainant committed a breach of his commitment with the respondent. Therefore, he is not entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs.96,000/- which he had paid to the respondent.

More importantly, admittedly, the vehicle stands registered in the name of the complainant. As a result, the respondent is holding the vehicle for last about six years since a vehicle registered in the name of the complainant cannot be sold to another person. If the complainant still wants to take delivery of the vehicle, nothing prevents him from approaching the respondent with such a request on payment of the balance amount with interest alongwith storage/parking charges on account of the vehicle being lying with the respondent for last about six years. But, non-refund of amount of Rs.96,000/- to the complainant on account of his failure to pay the balance sale consideration, cannot be said to be a deficiency in service. This is more so when the vehicle continues to be registered in the name of the complainant/petitioner.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.