Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows.  The complainant purchased Chevrolet Enjoy LTZ car from the opposite parties on payment of Rs.10,06,385/- on 10/11/2015 by availing an exchange offer provided by the opposite parties. It is further contented that on scrutiny the complainant found that the actual showroom price of the vehicle was only Rs. 7,95,513/- including all taxes, and the premium for the insurance was only Rs. 27,882/- and note as Rs. 30,882/- which was received by the opposite parties.  It is also contended that an amount of Rs.6,000/- was also collected by the opposite parties as handling charge from the complainant.  According to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,10,800/- was excessively collected by the opposite parties from the complainant.   The complainant realized these facts and approached the opposite party to return the excessive collected amount.  But his entire attempt was in vain.  It is contended that the failure of disbursement of the excess amount by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant is a clear deficiency in service against them.  Hence, the complaint to return the excess amount collected by the opposite parties, compensation, cost etc.etc.

3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed a joint version as follows:  According to opposite party 1 & 2 the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is contented that there is no pleading with regard to any defect in the goods or any deficiency in service, with regard to MRP and therefore this complaint cannot be treated as a consumer complaint.  It is admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the opposite parties.  According to the opposite parties the complainant understood all details of the price of the vehicle, tax, insurance etc.etc and purchased the vehicle for an amount of Rs.7,95,513/-.  The opposite parties have not collected any excess insurance amount as pleaded by the complainant.  The logistic and handling charges are the charges agreed between the parties.  The opposite parties opposed the allegation of collection of excess amount of Rs.10,800/- as contented by the complainant.  It is further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties and therefore it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost. 
4. We peruse the complaint, version and records before us and we framed the following issues for consideration.  

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he has been examined as PW1. Through the PW1, Ext. A1 to A3 were also marked.  Ext.A1 is the copy of retail sales order dated : 04/11/2015. Ext.A2 is the copy of retail invoice No.215 dated: 09/11/2015. Ext.A3 is the copy of insurance policy certificate dated: 09/11/2015.   On the other side though the opposite parties cross- examined PW1 no oral evidence adduced in their favour.  After the completion of the evidence we heard the complainant, the opposite parties called absent on that day hence case posted for orders. 

6.  Point No.1:  When we appreciate the evidence before us it is to be noted that the opposite parties raised a contention to the effect that the case is not maintainable before the Forum and this compliant cannot be treated as a consumer complaint and the consumer herein not at all ‘complainant’ as defined in Consumer Protection Act. 1986.  It is come out in evidence to see that the opposite parties admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the opposite parties by paying the consideration of the vehicle.  In the light of the admission of opposite party 1 & 2 with regard to the purchase of the vehicle after receiving the full consideration, we can be easily inferred that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite parties are service providers of the complainant as per Consumer Protection Act. 1986.  Therefore, this Forum has got jurisdiction to try this case and the case is maintainable before this Forum. Hence Point No. 1 found in favour of the complainant. 

               7. Point Nos. 2 and 3:   For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  When we evaluate the evidence of PW1 in this case it is to be inferred that PW1 deposed in proof affidavit more or less as per the tune of his complaint.  In order to substantiate his case the complainant is relying the Ext. A1 to A3 document.  When we examined Ext. A1 it is clear that the opposite parties received an amount of Rs.8,97,313/- as showroom price, insurance Rs.30,882/-, registration Rs.72,190/- and a handling charge Rs.6,000/- (total price Rs.10,06,385/-) from the complainant and an amount of Rs.51,385/- was received by the complainant as discount of this transaction.  It is to see that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was also received by the opposite parties as booking amount.  When we refer Ext. A2 it is proved that after deducting the discount amount Rs. 88,908.44/-, a net value of the vehicle can be seen as              Rs. 6,94,771.04/-.  As per Ext. A2 it is also proved that the rate of tax of the vehicle is 14.50%.  As per Ext. A2 it can also be seen that an amount of                   Rs.1,00,741.80/- was collected as sales tax for this vehicle.  The grand total of the vehicle is stated as Rs.7,95,513.00/- by Ext. A2.  The difference between the price shown in Ext. A1 and price shown in Ext. A2 is Rs. 1,01,800/-.  It can be also seen that as per Ext. A1 an amount of Rs.30,882/- was collected as the insurance premium and as per Ext. A3 the premium amount seen as                    Rs. 27,882/- only.  The difference of Rs. 3,000/- can be seen with regard to the insurance premium.  In Ext. A1 it is proved that the opposite parties received an amount of Rs.6,000/- as the handling charge from the complainant.  It is true that the opposite parties seriously contended that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.8,97,313/- by Ext. A1 with full consent and knowledge.  It is also contended that at the time of purchase the complainant was fully aware of the above said price of the vehicle and the right of the opposite parties to receive handling charge.  Though the opposite parties raised a contention as stated above, the opposite parties totally failed to adduce any substantial evidence in support of their contention.  If the opposite parties have any genuineness or justification with regard to this contention what prevented them to produce any document or rules to substantiate their case?

8.  In the light of the above discussion and after referring the above stated Ext.A1 to A3 it can be safely inferred that the opposite parties has received an excess amount of Rs.1,10,800/- from the complainant.  We find that there is no justification on the side of opposite parties to receive the excessive amount from the complainant.  It is also found that the opposite party 1 & 2 are jointly and severely liable to the complainant.  The complainant is succeeded to prove his case with cogent and conclusive evidence and also it is found that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the complainant.  Therefore, the complaint is allowable and Point No.2 and 3 are also found in favour of the complaint. 

9.   In the result, we pass the following order: 

           1. The opposite parties are directed to refund an excessive amount

                of Rs. 1,10,800/-(Rupees one Lakh Ten Thousand Eight

                hundred only) to the complainant with 10% interest from

                the date of this petition onwards. i.e. 26/02/2016.

2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of

     Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and a cost of

     Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only)  to the complainant

     with 10% interest from the date or order onwards.

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of April, 2017.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                          (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  N. Radhakrisha Pillai

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Copy of retail sales order dated:04/11/2015.

A2 :  Copy of retail invoice No.215 dated: 09/11/2015.

A3 :  copy of insurance policy certificate dated: 09/11/2015. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

                                                                                                  (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Radhakrishna Pillai.N, Valamparampil House,

                    Edayaranmula Muri, Aranmula Village,

                    Pin – 689 532.

2.  Chief Executive Officer, Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd., N.H. By Pass, Venpalavattom, Anayara.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram,

Pin – 695 029.

3. Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kumbazhethu Buildings,

          Churulicode, Pin – 689645.

4. The Stock File.