Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/36/2014

Yerram Jagadeeswara Reddy, S/o. Chenna Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aruna Motors Private Limited, By its General Manager - Opp.Party(s)

G. Ramaiah Pillai

26 Jun 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:28.07.2014

Order Date: 26.06.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

FRIDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

C.C.No.36/2014

 

Between

 

Yerram Jagadeeswara Reddy,

S/o. Chenna Reddy,

29-154-B1, Flat No.301, Teja Apartments,

Tekki,

Nandyala,

 

Presently at:

 

B-36, Balaji Complex,

Srininvasa Nagari,

Nandyala,

Kurnool District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         Aruna Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

            By its General Manager,

            48-10-12, Ramachandran Nagar,

            Opp. NTR Health University,

            Vijayawada – 520 008.

 

2.         Aruna Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

            By its Authorized Signatory,

            D.No.19-3-5/1, Renigunta Road,

            Tirupati.                                                                                 …  Opposite parties.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 11.06.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.K.Ajey Kumar, counsel for the opposite parties, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Sections-12 and 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party No.1 to refund Rs.45,154/- paid in excess for purchasing the vehicle Renault Duster RXL (o) 85 PS, 2) to direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant and 3) to direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

            2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are:-  that the complainant intends to purchase Renault Duster HP RXL from opposite party No.1. The opposite parties sent a quotation by e-mail on 07.12.2013 showing the specifications and cost of the vehicle at Rs.12,79,591/-. Accordingly, the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- on 28.12.2013 and Rs.12,00,000/- on 31.12.2013 by way of cheque and Rs.29,591/- on 04.01.2014, totaling a sum of Rs.12,79,591/- and taken delivery of the vehicle from opposite party No.2. On the date of delivery that is on 31.12.2013, the value of the vehicle Renault Duster HP RXL NAV is shown as Rs.9,45,517/- + VAT at 14.5%, which comes to Rs.1,37,100/-, thus the total cost of the vehicle was shown as Rs.10,83,617/- as per invoice No.204 dt:31.12.2013. The same cost is also adopted by the time of registration of the vehicle and also under the insurance policy issued by United India Insurance Company, Chennai, through opposite party No.1. As per 2^nd invoice, the vehicle cost is Rs.10,82,617/- + life tax of Rs.1,51,820/-, thus total cost comes to Rs.12,34,437/-. Therefore, the complainant paid an excess amount of Rs.45,154/-. Hence the complaint for refund of the excess amount.

            3.  The opposite party No.1 filed its written version, which was adopted by opposite party No.2, denying parawise allegations in the complaint and further contended that as per showroom price, the total cost of the vehicle is Rs.13,22,856/- i.e. “on road price” as on 07.12.2013. After negotiations, opposite party No.1 accepted to sell the vehicle by mentioning the on road cost as Rs.12,79,600/-, for which the complainant also accepted and requested the opposite party to furnish the quotation for the purpose of availing bank loan. Complainant obtained a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the bank. The opposite party paid insurance premium of Rs.42,204/- to United India Insurance Company Ltd. bearing policy No.1507013113P106339233 dt:31.12.2013. In the notice dt:17.01.2014 got issued by the complainant he claimed a sum of Rs.32,304/- alleging to have been paid in excess, in another notice got issued by the complainant subsequently claimed Rs.45,154/- to be refunded to him. The opposite parties gave suitable reply. That the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the C.P.Act. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            4.  The complainant and opposite parties have filed their respective chief affidavits and written arguments as well and got marked Exs.A1 to A13 for the complainant and Exs.B1 to B7 for the opposite parties.

            5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i). Whether the complainant is a consumer? If so, whether the complainant is

                 entitled to the refund of Rs.45,154/- as claimed?  

            (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.20,000/-

                  and costs of the complaint as prayed for?

            (iii)  To what relief?

            6.  Point No.(i):- in view of the provisions of Section-2(1)(d) of C.P.Act

           

“consumer” means any person who –  buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.

           

 

            In the case on hand, admittedly the complainant has purchased the Renault Duster car from the opposite parties by paying a sum of Rs.12,79,591/- under Exs.A2, A4 and A7. Though the opposite party has specifically denied all the allegations mentioned in the complaint including purchase of the vehicle and payments under Exs.A2, A4 and A7, at later stage, in the written version, they admitted that the complainant has purchased vehicle, though slight variation is there in the name of the vehicle, it is not the dispute of either party that the vehicle given delivery is different from that of the vehicle mentioned in the quotations, therefore, it cannot be considered. In view of the definition referred to above, the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(i)(d) of the C.P.Act.

            7.  The complainant is claiming Rs.45,154/- stating that he has paid the said amount in excess of the cost of the vehicle. As could be seen from Ex.A1, the cost of the vehicle is mentioned with specifications as under:-

Ex-Showroom price	11,10,951
Life Tax	1,55,790
Insurance	43,265
Logistic charges	9,900
Accessories	2,950
On-Road Price	13,22,856

 

            the same price was given / furnished in Ex.B1 also i.e. both in Ex.B1 and Ex.A1 quotations, dt:07.12.2013. But in Ex.A1 quotation dt:07.12.2013 it is noted that discount is given for the insurance amount of Rs.43,265/-. After deducting the discount, the net amount towards the vehicle cost is shown as Rs.12,79,591/-, which is admittedly paid by the complainant by way of payment of Rs.50,000/- towards advance on 28.12.2013, Rs.12,00,000/- on 31.12.2013 by way of cheque i.e transfer through bank and Rs.29,591/- on 04.01.2014 to the opposite parties, thus total sum of Rs.12,79,591/- admittedly and taken delivery of the vehicle.

            8.  On the date of delivery i.e. on 31.12.2013, the value of the vehicle Renault Duster HP RXL NAV is shown under Ex.A3 as Rs.9,45,517/-  + VAT at 14.5% which comes to Rs.1,37,100/- and grand total as Rs.10,82,617/-. In order to clarify the distinction between these two rates, the learned counsel for the opposite party stated that for the purpose of bank loan, they have given the rates specified in Exs.A1 an B1 dt:07.12.2013, that insurance amount of Rs.43,265/- was given discount. The said amount was already paid by the opposite party to the insurance company, therefore, though the rate of the vehicle was shown as Rs.10,82,617/- in Ex.A3, if the life tax and insurance amount is added to the said amount, total amount comes to Rs.12,79,591/-

            9.  As per Ex.B1 quotation dt:07.12.2013, there was no such mentioning so far as discount of Rs.43,265/- is concerned, this disparate was not clarified by the opposite parties. For satisfying and promoting the business of opposite parties, they have mentioned in Ex.A1 that they have given discount of Rs.43,265/- for the consumer, who purchased the vehicle, whereas Ex.B1 did not reveal / disclose the said discount. Coming to Ex.B2 quotation dt:09.12.2013 it shows that the Ex-Show Room Price of the vehicle as Rs.10,82,617/-, Life Tax is Rs.1,51,820/-, Insurance amount is Rs.42,213/-, Logistic Charges –nil- and Accessories Rs.2,950/-, total amount comes to Rs.12,79,600/-, here who paid the insurance is to be clarified, that apart as per Ex.A6 insurance policy premium amount of Rs.42,204/- was paid. This amount is also varies from Ex.A1 to that of Ex.B2 as well as Ex.A6. According to Ex.A1 the insurance amount was shown as Rs.43,265/-, as per Ex.A6 the insurance amount is shown as Rs.42,204/- and as per Ex.B2 the insurance amount shown as Rs.42,213/-, which one is to be accepted? So, the insurance policy is already issued under Ex.A6. Therefore, it is to be taken into consideration. Apart from all these things Ex.A3 the Tax Invoice No.204 dt:31.12.2013 on which the vehicle was taken delivery. Ex.A3 shows the value of one new Renault Duster HP RXL NAV with factory fitted A/c and other standard equipment is Rs.9,45,517/- + VAT output          @ 14.5%,  which comes to Rs.1,37,100/-, grand total of Rs.10,82,617/-. If life tax of Rs.1,55,790/- is added to it, the total amount comes to Rs.12,38,407/-.

            10.  If the opposite party furnished the quotation under Ex.A1 only for the purpose of availing bank loan by the complainant, given discount of Rs.43,265/-, even if the said insurance amount of Rs.43,265/- (given discount) was paid by the opposite party, it should not be collected from the complainant. The tax invoice under Ex.A3 bearing No.204 dt:31.12.2013 will be taken into account, as per which opposite party collected the actual price of the vehicle + VAT and life tax, which comes to Rs.12,38,407/- but the opposite party has collected Rs.12,79,591/-. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the balance amount. If the amount shown under Ex.A3 + Life Tax is deducted from Rs.12,79,591/-, balance amount will be Rs.41,184/-. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.41,184/- but not Rs.45,154/-. Accordingly this point is answered. 

            11.  Point No.(ii):-  to answer this point, we have to state that by collecting excess amount than the amount shown under Ex.A3 and inspite of notices under Exs.A8 and A10 dt:17.01.2014 and 02.06.2014 respectively, the opposite party did not choose to repay the amount collected excessively from the complainant and settle the dispute instead of compelling the complainant to approach this Forum and caused mental agony to the complainant. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant is also entitled for compensation for  mental agony suffering from due to the acts of opposite party. Accordingly this point is answered.

            12.  Point No.(iii):-  In view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.41,184/- and compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- and also entitled to costs of the litigation. Accordingly the complaint is to be allowed.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.41,184/- (Rupees forty one thousand one hundred and eighty four only) to the complainant and also directed opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation to the complainant for the mental agony caused to him by the opposite party by not considering his request for refund of excess amount and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The opposite party No.1 hereby further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.41,184/- (paid in excess) and the compensation of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization. Complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed, as no relief is sought against it.       

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 26^th day of June, 2015.   

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: Yerram Jagadeeswara Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party.

 

RW-1: N.V.S. Sastry (Chief Affidavit filed). 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	Photo copy of Quotation issued by the Opposite party No.1 for Renault Duster RXL (O) 85 PS for Rs.12,79,591/- through net. Dt: 07.12.2013.
2.	Cash receipt for Rs. 50,000/- issued by the opposite party No.1. Dt: 28.12.2012.
3.	Tax invoice showing the value of one new Renault Duster HP RXL NAV for Rs. 10,82,617/- including VAT. Dt: 31.12.2013.
4.	Photo copy deposit amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the opposite party No.1. Bank account. Dt: 31.12.2013.
5.	Photo copy of tax receipt showing the invoice amount of Rs.10,82,617/-. Dt: 31.12.2013.
6.	Copy of Insurance policy for the said vehicle issued by United India Insurance Company, Chennai for ID value Rs.10,28,486/-.
7.	Cash receipt for Rs. 29, 591/- issued by the opposite party No.1 through the Branch office at Tirupati. Dt: 04.01.2014.
8.	Copy of Legal notice to the opposite parties 1 and 2 by the complainant. Dt: 17.01.2014.
9.	Photo copy of reply from the opposite party No.1 and 2 through their lawyer.  Dt: 11.02.2014.
10.	Detailed legal notice on 02.06.2014 to the opposite parties 1 and 2 with postal acknowledgement.
11.	Reply notice on behalf of Opposite Party.No.2 with copy of reply by the complaints advocate on 05.08.2014.
12.	Copy of Aruna Motors Private Limited Quotation. Dt: 07.12.2013.
13.	Quotation given to the bank for the renewal of vehicle on 07.12.2013 and 09.12.2013.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	Photo copy of Aruna Motors Private Limited Quotation. Dt: 07.12.2013.
2.	Photo copy of Aruna Motors Private Limited 2nd Quotation. Dt: 09.12.2013.
3.	Photo copy of Legal notice issued by the complainant. Dt: 17.01.2014.
4.	Photo copy of 2nd Legal notice issued by the complainant. Dt: 02.06.2014.
5.	Reply Notice with Ack issued by the Opposite Party. Dt: 01.08.2014.
6.	Photo copy of E-mail regarding the Duster RXL(O) Quotation.  Dt: 10.12.2013.
7.	Photo copy of Order. Dt: 02.03.2015.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                                                President

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

              Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite parties.