KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 444/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27-02-2010 PRESENT: JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER APPELLANT Ajitha, D/o K.P. Gangadharan, Aged 35 years, Amrutha, Chala East, Kannur. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Rajesh Sukumaran. K & Smt. Suja. R) Vs RESPONDENTS 1. M/s Automotive Marketing (P) Ltd., Kairali Nagar, Nr. Poly Technic, Thottada, Kannur. 2. M/s Automotive Marketing (P) Ltd., Br. 39/1405-A, Kannur Road, Puthiyangadi P.O., Kozhikode 673021. 3. Head Customer Service, Eicher Motors, 72/2 Yeswant Nivas Road, INDORE- 452003. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. P. Raghunathan & Smt. Shylaja Raghunath) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC 216/06 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint filed claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she purchased an Eicher Tipper for Rs. 8,79,800/- by exchanging her Ashok Leyland Vehicle for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/-. The 3rd opposite party/dealer agreed to pay a discount of Rs. 50,000/-. The opposite party also arranged for the complainant a loan of Rs. 3,50,000 from M/s Sundaram Finance. After the completion of the transaction, the opposite parties refused to pay Rs. 50,000/-, the offered discount. A credit note for Rs. 50,000/- was handed over. But no payment was made. Lawyer notice was issued on 14-07-2006 for which the opposite parties have replied raising untenable contentions. 3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed joint version and the 3rd opposite party filed a separate version containing the same contentions. The opposite parties have denied that there was an offer of discount of Rs. 50,000/-. According to them, the credit note has been misunderstood. The Ashok Leyland vehicle exchanged was valued at Rs. 5,50,000/- and credit was given for the same. The balance amount to be paid was Rs. 3,29,800/- apart from the insurance premium and vehicle tax. The Ashok Leyland Lorry was sold by the opposite party before the new vehicle was delivered to the complainant. The Ashok Leyland vehicle could fetch only Rs. 5,00,000/- as against the anticipated price of Rs. 5,50,000/-. Hence the complainant could be given credit for only Rs. 5,00,000/- leaving a debit balance of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence in order to square up the amount, the credit note for Rs. 50,000/- was issued to the complainant for accounting purposes. According to the opposite parties, there was no discount offer. Further it is specifically mentioned in the order form that no discount will be given for the exchange schemes. The benefits are offered only along with normal outright purchases. It is contended that the complainant is yet to pay Rs. 16,500/- towards the speed limitation device and labour charge for fixing the same. 4. The 3rd opposite party has further contended that he is an unnecessary part as the vehicle was sold by the second opposite party. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, PW2, DW1, Exts. A1 to A6 and B1 to B6. 6. We find that the Forum has exclusively relied on Ext.B2, the sale agreement between the complainant and the second opposite party wherein there is no mention about the discount offered. Ext.B2 is dated 15-06-2006. The Forum has noted that according to the complainant when examined, it is on the next date of Ext.B2 that the opposite party promised to pay the amount. In Ext.B1 order form dated 15-06-2006 also the column with respect to the discount is blank. 7. We find that the relevance of Ext.A2 credit note was not at all considered by the Forum. The contention of the opposite parties/respondents is that it was issued only for accounting purposes. Ext.A2 credit note is dated 30-06-2006 ie, the date of sale of the vehicle. In Ext.A2, the amount is mentioned as discount allowed to Mrs. Ajitha (complainant) on invoice No. 185 which is Ext.A1 the invoice with respect to the new vehicle. Ext. B4 is the copy of Ext.A2. Ext. B3 discount voucher also mentioned the discount amount as Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant has issued the lawyer notice dated 14-07-2006 ie, soon after the transaction. The copy of the general ledger produced also would show that the complainant has been credited with a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Ext.A2 credit note etc. and the mention in Ext.B3 as discount of Rs. 50,000/- support the case of the complainant. The evidence of DW1 did not contain any explanation as to the reason for having handing over of Ext.A2 to the complainant. The reason for issuing Ext.A2 credit note to the complainant is not properly explained. If it was only for accounting purposes there was no reason as to why the same was issued to the complainant. In the circumstances, we find that the case of the complainant that she was offered a discount of Rs. 50,000/- appears genuine. The evidence of PW1, the father of the complainant could not be discredited in the cross examination. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The respondents/opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards the discount offered. The amount is to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% from the date of this order. The complainant/appellant would also be entitled for cost of Rs. 2,000/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed as above. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER |
