By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for collecting more amount towards insurance and tax from the Complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased a Honda Active 125 Scooter from the 1st Opposite party on 13.04.2015 for a sum of Rs.61,966/-. The Opposite Parties collected Rs.1,896/- towards insurance charge and Rs.5,307/- towards road tax, Rs.4,770/- towards accessories. When the Complainant went to Regional Transport Office, Kalpetta, it is found that no original paper are endorsed for certain papers. So the Complainant could not register the vehicle on that day. Later registration was done and the Complainant verified the papers and found that instead of Rs.1,670/- as insurance the 1st Opposite Party collected Rs.1,896/- from the Complainant. In the head of road tax, the Opposite party No.1 collected Rs.5,307/- instead of Rs.5,117/-. The 1st Opposite Party collected Rs.500/- towards extended warranty from the complainant but not issued any papers in this regard. So the Opposite party's act is nothing but unfair trade practice and aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite Parties and notices are duly served to the Opposite Parties. But Opposite Parties did not appear before the Forum and Opposite Parties are set exparte.
4. On perusal of documents, complaint and proof affidavit, the Forum raised the following points for consideration .
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable due to territorial jurisdiction?
2. Whether there is unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite Parties?
3. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A5. On perusal of documents, the Forum found that the Complainant purchased the vehicle from the Opposite Parties having office at Malappuram. The vehicle is not delivered at Wayanad and the Complainant not alleged any defect in the vehicle either in service or in any manufacturing defect. The only allegation is that the Opposite Parties collected more amount from the Complainant towards insurance and tax. The transaction actually took place in Malappuram District and the Opposite Parties had business at Malappuram. Hence the forum found that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. Hence the other issues need not be answered. Point No.1 found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed for want of territorial Jurisdiction. The complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before the proper Forum since there is no limitation.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 7th day of December 2016.
Date of Filing:22.09.2016.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
Nil.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Estimate.
A2. Copy of Retail Invoice. dt:13.04.2016.
A3. Copy of Two Wheeler Policy Certificate of Insurance Cum Schedule.
A4. Copy of Form TR5(c) (See Rule 90(a) of KTC).
A5. Copy of Statement.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties:
Nil.
