Colonel C.P. Raghunandanan vs Area Manager Canteen Stores Department Govt. Of India

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 857 of 2011 - Colonel C.P. Raghunandanan Vs. The Area Manager, Canteen Stores Department by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and OP was directed to pay Rs.25,000/ - as compensation and Rs.3,000/ - as cost.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner a retired Colonel from Indian Army booked a TATA Indica DLS Car of Arizona Ocher colour through OP/respondent and paid Rs.3,22,760/ - on 26.03.2007 and car was to be delivered by M/s. VST Motors, Chennai. Complainant subsequently settled at Trichur and in order to make effective delivery of the car, issued cheques for the Tax, Registration charges, Insurance, etc. to M/s. VST Motors on 11.5.2007. When the complainant went to M/s. VST Motors to take delivery of the car, he found that the car was of silver colour and not of Arizona Ocher colour for which the complainant had placed order. Complainant approached OP for cancellation of the car and booking another car of Maruti Swift Diesel car by paying additional amount, but OP refused to cancel earlier booked car, as car had already been registered in the name of the complainant and once in two years fresh car can be allotted by the OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that they are not concerned with the supply of car once purchase order was sent to the supplier M/s. VST Motors, Chennai and further submitted that without impleading M/s. VST Motors, Chennai as a party, complaint was not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as car of his choice was not supplied by OP to the complainant, complainant was entitled to get refund of the amount paid along with compensation and learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint in toto and learned State Commission further committed error in allowing appeal partly; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned orders be set aside and complaint be allowed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

ADMITTEDLY , in the indent of purchase of 4 -wheeler, complainant mentioned M/s. VST Motors Ltd., Chennai as dealer ''s name for collection of car and admittedly complainant has not impleaded M/s. VST Motors Ltd., Chennai as OP in the complaint, though, impleaded in the first complaint and deleted later on. Complaint was not maintainable only against the OP as it could not have come on record what transpired between the complainant and M/s. VST Motors Ltd. who delivered the car. Perusal of indent form also reveals that Arizona Ocher colour was only a preference of colour choice and nowhere it has been mentioned that other colour will not be acceptable. In such circumstances, merely by filling preference colour, complainant was not entitled to get registration of the car cancelled and get refund of the money.

PERUSAL of record further reveals that complainant himself visited M/s. VST Motors Ltd. and signed necessary papers and on the basis of those papers, car of silver colour was registered in the name of complainant and in such circumstances, it appears that complainant himself was negligent in accepting delivery of silver colour car and once the car was registered in the name of the complainant, it could not have been cancelled and on the basis of difference in colour, State Commission has not committed any error in partly allowing appeal and directing OP to pay Rs.25,000/ - as compensation along with interest of Rs.3,000/ - as cost. Complainant could not make out any case for refund of the whole amount. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.