Failure To Deliver Innova Car As Promised: District Commission Orders Toyota Dealer To Pay Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Vizianagaram presided by Sri R. Venkata Nagasundar (President) and Smt. B. Sridevi (Member) allowed the complaint in favor of the Complainant against Toyota (Dealer) and Leela Krishna Toyota (Sub-dealer). As per the Commission's decision, the Dealer and Sub-dealer are required to reimburse the Complainant with an amount of Rs. 25,13,569/-. This amount represents the payment made by the Complainant for the Innova Crysta Auto transmission vehicle (vehicle) along with an interest of 12% per annum. Additionally, they must also pay Rs. 2,84,552/- and Rs. 1,31,313.91/- for the EMIs and bank closure charges, respectively. Moreover, the Dealer and Sub-dealer are also obliged to compensate the Complainant with Rs. 1 Lakh for the inconvenience caused and Rs. 30,000/- for the legal expenses incurred, including the Advocate Fee of Rs. 5,000/-. Brief Facts: The Complainant relying on the Dealer's assurance purchased a vehicle for Rs. 31,96,489, with the understanding that it would be delivered by the first week of February 2022, but no later than 28th February 2022. Initially, the Complainant paid Rs. 2,00,000/- based on the Dealer's instructions and later availed a loan from ICICI bank to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 23,13,569/- to the Dealer. It was agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 5,92,920/- would be paid upon delivery. Despite assurances from both the Dealer and Sub-dealer in writing, the vehicle's delivery was continuously delayed, causing lack of confidence to the Complainant. The Complainant requested a refund of the sale price with 24% per annum interest. However, neither the vehicle was delivered nor the amount was refunded by the Dealer and Sub-dealer. As a result, the Complainant had to bear the burden of paying monthly EMIs of Rs. 35,569/- for the loan used to purchase the vehicle, along with closure charges of Rs. 1,31,313/-. The prolonged delays and lack of response from the Dealer and Sub-dealer caused significant mental distress to the Complainant. Despite issuing a legal notice, there was no positive response from the Dealer and Sub-dealer, prompting the Complainant to file the Consumer Complaint. The Dealer appeared before the commission but failed to submit any counter within the 45-day period, thus forfeiting the right to do so. The Sub-dealer could not be located through regular means and hence, at the Complainant's request, the commission ordered publication of the notice in a daily newspaper. The Sub-dealer did not appear before the commission. Due to the non-contestation of the complaint by both the Dealer and Sub-dealer, the commission proceeded with the case as per section 38 (3) (b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Observations of the District Commission: The District Commission observed that the actions of the Dealer and Sub-dealer point to a deficiency of service as there is evidence that the Complainant booked the vehicle and provided an acknowledgment receipt for the advance payment. Furthermore, both the Dealer and Sub-dealer had assured the Complainant that the car would be delivered by March 2022. They even gave a commitment to refund the amount received from the Complainant with interest if they failed to deliver the vehicle. The Commission noted the Complainant is a consumer within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act as he made a partial payment towards the sale consideration of the product to the sellers. As a result, it is the obligation of the Dealer and Sub-dealer to either deliver the car as promised or, as an alternative, refund the amount they received from the Complainant. Based on the evidence presented, the Commission concluded that the Complainant took a loan from ICICI Bank to make the payment, which has not been disputed by the Dealer and Sub-dealer. Hence, the Complainant is justified in claiming the cost of EMIs and bank closure charges. The Complainant has endured mental distress along with financial loss and is entitled to reasonable interest on the amount paid. Therefore, the Commission ordered the Dealer and Sub-dealer to refund the Complainant an amount of Rs. 25,13,569/-, along with an interest rate of 12% per annum. Additionally, they must reimburse the Complainant with Rs. 2,84,552/- and Rs. 1,31,313.91/- for the EMIs and bank closure charges, respectively. As compensation for the inconvenience caused, the Dealer and Sub-dealer are also directed to pay Rs. 1 Lakh and Rs. 30,000/- towards legal expenses, including an Advocate Fee of Rs. 5,000/-. Case Title: Sri Vempadampu Suryanarayana vs. Toyata Counsel for Complainant: Sri B. Satyanarayana, Advocate Counsel for Opposite Parties: Sri D. Appa Rao, Advocate Click Here To Read/Download Order

Failure To Deliver Innova Car As Promised: District Commission Orders Toyota Dealer To Pay Compensation

Sachika Vij

Tags