IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 79/2010 (Filed on 31.5.2010)
Between:
Mathew Mudanakuzhiyil,
Mudanakuzhiyil Bob Joseph Villa,
Puthussery South P.O.,
Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.
(By Adv. Mini Lovejith) … Complainant.
And:
1. The General Manager,
Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
TC-292628(3), Venpala Vallam,
N.H. Bypass, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. N. Jayakumar,
Zonal Manager,
General Motor India Pvt. Ltd.,
Karumuttu Centre G.F.4,
No. 498, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai-35.
3. The Branch Manager,
Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Dealership Office,
Churalicode P.O.,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. S. Ajith) (for opposite
parties 1 & 3)) … Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complainant against the opposite parties for getting a relief from this Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that on 27.02.2009 he purchased a new Chevrolet Magnum Diesel vehicle with Engine No.Z2051242887K and Reg.No.KL-28/5521 from the opposite parties. 1st and 2nd opposite parties are General Manager and Zonal Manager respectively of the company. 3rd opposite party is the Branch Manager of the first opposite party company. The sales representation of the 3rd opposite party approached the complainant and offered incentives to purchase a new vehicle. 3rd opposite party collected ` 7,45,000 as the price of the vehicle and an additional amount ` 10,000 for providing special sparkling diamond colour car and ` 70,000 for registration and road tax. Actual registration fee etc. is only ` 60,469. As on 27.02.2009 the actual price of the vehicle is ` 9,45,560. So ` 1,23,684 was collected excessively from the complainant. ` 9,537 is excessively collected for registration and road tax. Moreover complainant had a Chevrolet Optra 2003 Model good condition car and 3rd opposite party purchased the vehicle for an amount of ` 3,24,000. But the actual price is suppressed and only ` 3,07,000 is given as sale price. At the time of delivery a 2008 model vehicle was delivered to the complainant instead of 2009 Model. The opposite parties failed to make Teflon coating for which they received ` 10,000. Thus a total amount of ` 1,33,215 is with the opposite parties as excess amount collected in respect of the purchase of the car.
3. After the purchase of the vehicle, on several times complainant made complaints to the opposite parties for the refund of the excess amount. On 16.04.2009 and on 13.06.2009 complainant sent letters to the 1st and 2nd opposite party but they failed to act. On 14.08.2009 complainant sent legal notice to the opposite parties, they again failed to act and hence this complaint. He comes to know about the act of cheating only when he received the R.C. Book from 3rd opposite party.
4. Hence the complainant prays for an order for allowing to realize the excess amount of ` 1,33,215 collected by the opposite parties with 18% interest and ` 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and ` 5,000 as cost of this proceedings.
5. Opposite parties 1 and 3 entered appearance and filed their version with the following contentions. According to the opposite parties, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Complaint itself is not sustainable due to mis-joinder of parties. M/s. Deedi Motors (P) Ltd. is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. 1st and 3rd opposite parties are only employees. They admit that complainant has purchased a Chevrolet vehicle of the Model Optra Magnum Diesel from the opposite party. Complainant was provided with an order booking form. After understanding and satisfying he has booked the vehicle. He has not raised any objection at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle. Complainant was issued proper receipt for the amount received. Opposite party has not collected any excess amount as alleged by the complainant. Complainant was issued with proper receipt showing the price of the vehicle and the receipt is with the complainant. Complainant was informed about the payment of ` 10,000 for special colour and it has been stated in the order booking form. Teflon coating over the body has been made in the car free of cost.
6. Road tax has been paid and the tax token is provided to the complainant. No excess amount collected from the complainant. 3rd opposite party has not purchased the old vehicle of the complainant as alleged. The real fact is suppressed by the complainant. In fact on the request of the complainant, 3rd opposite party only introduced second hand car purchasing agent to the complainant and the complainant’s vehicle selling letter is with the complainant. He has suppressed the said document and made false allegation against the opposite parties. The allegation that the complainant was provided with old vehicle of 2008 Model is not correct. He was provided with a brand new car. He had purchased the vehicle after verifying the vehicle and he was informed that the vehicle is of 2008 Model and in the vehicle delivery note the complainant has also signed. The allegation that an old model vehicle is given is for misleading and the same is denied. Opposite parties have not received any amount for Teflon coating as alleged. The amount of ` 10,000 received is for special metallic colour of the vehicle and it is admitted, which was agreed by the complainant.
7. Opposite parties denies the allegation that they collected excess amount from the complainant. In the letters issued to the opposite parties by the complainant, no allegation about the excess amount. Complainant issued an advocate notice in which he has made a claim of ` 2,13,215. This contradictory claim of the complainant proves that there is no basis in his allegation.
8. Opposite parties denied all the allegations and they submit that there is no cheating. There is no injury or hardship to the complainant as alleged. He is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite parties. Complainant is not entitled to get any relief claimed by him. Hence opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
9. Second opposite party is exparte.
10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
11. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DWs.1 and 2 and Exts. A1 to A14 and Ext. B1. After closure of evidence, both sides filed their argument notes and they were heard.
12. The Point: The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties collected an amount of ` 1,33,215 in excess in the transaction between the parties and opposite parties delivered a 2008 model car instead of delivering a 2009 model car and opposite parties has not carried out teflom coating though they have collected ` 10,000 for the same. On the other hand, opposite parties denied all the allegations raised by the complainant.
13. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 14 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and out of the 14 documents produced by the complainant, 13 documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A13 through PW1 and the other document is marked as Ext. A14 through DW1. Ext. A1 is the photocopy of the R.C. book of the newly purchased Chevrolet car. Ext. A2 is the photocopy of the tax licence of the said vehicle. Ext. A3 is the photocopy of the cash receipt dated 27.02.2009 for ` 6,79,354 issued by Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd., Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant. Ext. A4 is the carbon copy of vehicle sale agreement executed between the complainant and one M.A. Sibi in respect of the sale of the complainant’s old car bearing registration No. KL-03J/1701 for ` 3,24,000 Ext. A5 is the photocopy of the R.C. book in respect of the complainant’s old car bearing registration No.KL-03J/1701. Ext. A6 is the credit invoice dated 06.04.2009 issued by Geeyem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Cochin in the name of the complainant. Ext. A7 is the reply letter dated 27.07.2009 issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext. A8 is the photocopy of the sale certificate dated 27.02.2009 in respect of the vehicle in question. Ext. A9 is the photocopy of the motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule in respect of the complainant’s old vehicle. Ext. A10 is the photocopy of the front page of the order booking form dated 24.02.2009 in respect of the complainant’s new vehicle issued by the third opposite party. Ext. A11 is the copy of the legal notice dated 14.08.2009 issued by the complainant to the first and second opposite parties. Ext. A12 is the postal receipts of Ext. A11 legal notice. Ext. A13 is the postal acknowledgment cards of Ext. A11 legal notice. Ext. A14 is the photocopy of the insurance policy certificate in respect of the complainant’s new vehicle.
14. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties 1 and 3, they have filed proof affidavits and on the basis of the proof affidavits, they were examined as DWs.1 and 2. One document was also marked as Ext. B1 for the opposite parties through PW1. Ext. B1 is the new vehicle delivery note issued by the third opposite party in the name of the complainant.
15. The complainant’s first allegation is that he had paid an amount of ` 10,69,000 in connection with the above said transaction whereas he is liable to pay only an amount of ` 9,35,785 and thereby opposite parties collected an excess amount of ` 1,33,215 without any basis. The mode of payment is that he had paid ` 7,45,000 as cash and ` 3,24,000 adjusted by the opposite parties through the sale of the complainant’s old car. In order to prove the payment of ` 10,69,000, complainant is relying on Ext. A3 receipt and Ext. A4, old car sale agreement and Ext. A10 order booking form. On a perusal of the above said exhibits, it is seen that as per Ext. A3 receipt, opposite parties received ` 6,79,354, as per Ext. A4 old car sale agreement, opposite parties received ` 3,24,000 and as per Ext. A10 order booking form an amount of ` 1,000 was collected by the opposite parties as advance booking charge. Though opposite parties contended that they have received only ` 3,07,000 in the old car sale transaction, they have not adduced any cogent evidence to prove the said contention and they have not challenged the genuineness of Ext. A4, old car sale agreement. Hence we came to the conclusion that they have received ` 3,24,000 in the said transaction and the total receipt is Rs. 10,04,354. At the same time, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he had paid altogether an amount of ` 10,69,000 to the opposite parties. Thus, it is clear that the complainant had paid only ` 10,04,354. As per the statement of account shown in Ext. A7 letter dated 27.07.2009 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant, the price of the car is ` 9,45,316 and registration, road tax etc. is ` 60,469. No other expenses were shown in Ext. A7. Thus, the opposite parties are entitled to get ` 10,05,785 and they have received only ` 10,04,354. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant that opposite parties collected an excess amount of ` 1,33,215 is not sustainable.
16. The second allegation is with regard to the teflom coating. According to the opposite parties, they have not collected any amount for teflom coating. But the complainant failed to adduce any evidence to show that he had paid ` 10,000 for teflom coating. So the said allegation is also not sustainable.
17. The third allegation is with regard to the year manufacture of the vehicle. According to the complainant, instead of giving a 2009 model vehicle, opposite parties delivered a 2008 model vehicle. Opposite parties denied this allegation by saying that they never assured to deliver a 2009 model car and they have delivered a 2008 model car with the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant’s argument is that he booked a 2009 model car, but he got a 2008 model car and this fact came to the knowledge of the complainant only on getting the Ext. A1 registration certificate. As per Ext. A10, the booking was made on 24.02.2009. As per Ext. A8 sale certificate, the car was delivered on 27.02.2009. As per Ext. A14, the insurance was taken with effect from 27.02.2009. In Ext. A8 sale certificate and in Ext. A14 insurance certificate, the year of manufacture is entered as 2009 whereas in Ext. A1 R.C. book, the year of manufacture is recorded as 2008. In order to counter this allegation, opposite parties are relying on Ext.B1 delivery note. Ext. B1 delivery note is dated 03.03.2009 but there is no evidence to show that the delivery note was issued on that day itself. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it can be seen that the insurance formalities and the registration formalities are done by the opposite parties. So the connected documents might have reached the complainant after few days from the date of registration. Ext. B1 delivery note is not a statutory document whereas Ext. A8 sale certificate and Ext. A14 insurance policy certificate are statutory documents. So the year of manufacture recorded in Exts. A8 and A14 are relevant and the date of manufacture recorded in Ext. B1 delivery note is not relevant. Year of manufacture noted in Ext. A1 R.C. is the actual year of manufacturing. Year of manufacture recorded by the opposite parties in Exts. A8 and A14 was for misguiding the complainant. So it is very clear that opposite parties had played some foul play in respect of the manufacturing year of the vehicle which is a clear cheating and is an unfair trade practice. Therefore, this complaint is partly allowable.
18. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of ` 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation and ` 2,500 (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as cost to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount jointly and severally from the opposite parties along with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of March, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : M.J. Mathew.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the R.C. book of the newly purchased Chevrolet
car.
A2 : Photocopy of the tax licence of the newly purchased car.
A3 : Photocopy of the cash receipt dated 27.02.2009 for Rs. 6,79,354
issued by Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd., Pathanamthitta in the name
of the complainant.
A4 : Carbon copy of vehicle sale agreement executed between the
complainant and one M.A. Sibi in respect of the sale of the
complainant’s old car bearing registration No. KL-03J/1701.
A5 : Photocopy of the R.C. book in respect of the complainant’s old
car bearing registration No.KL-03J/1701.
A6 : Credit invoice dated 06.04.2009 issued by Geeyem Motors Pvt.
Ltd. Cochin in the name of the complainant.
A7 : Reply letter dated 27.07.2009 issued by the first opposite party
in the name of the complainant.
A8 : Photocopy of the sale certificate dated 27.02.2009 in respect of
the vehicle Chevrolet Optra Magnum car.
A9 : Photocopy of the motor insurance certificate cum policy
schedule in respect of the complainant’s old vehicle.
A10 : Photocopy of the order booking form dated 24.02.2009 in
respect of the complainant’s new vehicle issued by the third
opposite party.
A11 : Copy of the legal notice dated 14.08.2009 issued by the
complainant to the first and second opposite parties.
A12 : Postal receipts of Ext. A11 legal notice.
A13 : Postal acknowledgment cards of Ext. A11 legal notice.
A14 : Photocopy of the insurance policy certificate in respect of the
complainant’s new vehicle.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Shaji Vamadevan.
DW2 : Kiran George Philip.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the new vehicle delivery note.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Mathew Mudanakuzhiyil, Mudanakuzhiyil Bob Joseph Villa,
Puthussery South P.O., Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.
(2) The General Manager, Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd., TC-292628(3),Venpala Vallam, N.H. Bypass, Thiruvananthapuram.
(3) N. Jayakumar, Zonal Manager, General Motor India Pvt. Ltd.,
Karumuttu Centre G.F.4, No. 498, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai-35.
(4) The Branch Manager, Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd., Dealership Office,
Churalicode P.O., Pathanamthitta.
(5) The Stock File.
