Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II):
Complainants filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: The first complainant is the husband of the 2nd complainant. The 2nd complainant purchased a Maruti Alto 800 LXI. The complainants booked the vehicle and paid Rs. 1000/- as advance on 11/02/15. At the time of booking the vehicle, opposite party offered government employees bonus Rs.5000/-. Two wheelers owner’s offer Rs. 2,500/- and company offer Rs. 30,000/-. The said car was purchased by the complainants on 19/02/2015 by paying Rs. 3,09,969/-. The said vehicle was insured with opposite party by complainant by paying premium amount of Rs.12,577/-, Road tax of Rs. 18,598/- and handling charge of Rs.6,000/-. The complainant arranged a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from bank and paid cash Rs.1,16,144/- to the opposite party. The opposite party assured many offers to the complainants but they have give only Rs. 30,000/- as company offer and give a promise to provide other offers within 10 days. But they did not returned any amount. Handling charge of Rs. 6,000/- was also not refunded. The non– payment of the offer amount of Rs. 7,500/- and handling charge of Rs. 6,000/- are comes under the deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. The above said acts of the opposite party caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainants and they are liable to the same. Hence this complaint is for an order directing the opposite party to return the offer of Rs.5,000/- for government employees, Rs. 2,500/- as two wheelers holders and Rs.6,000/- for handling charge along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and for realization of the cost of this proceedings.
3. Opposite party filed his version with the following main contention: The opposite party admitted that the complainant has purchased a Maruti and paid the entire amount which includes bank loan and she was entitled to get the offers viz. two wheeler (scooter) offer for Rs.5,000/-, a special discount of Rs. 10,350/-, consumer discount of Rs.25,000/- and another special discount of Rs.5,000/-. The total discount of Rs.45,350/- was given to complainants. Opposite party has also offered government employees discount but the complainants were not produced the required documents in time. The opposite party admitted that they were ready to give the government employees offer if they would produced the required documents. The opposite party intimated the complainants that an amount of Rs. 2,698/- is outstanding in their account but the complainants were not accepted the said amount. The contention of the complainants in this respect is false and baseless. The complainant was not paid handling charge of Rs. 6,000/-. Moreover, the complainant had took delivery of the car on 20/02/2015. After 10 months the complainants had raised a claim about the handling charge. Therefore in the circumstances, the complainants allegations are baseless. So the complainants are not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. There was absolutely no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not.
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4. Though the opposite party cross-examined PW1, no other evidence adduced from their part. After closure of evidence both sides were heard.
6. The point:- The complainants case is that she had purchased a Maruti Alto 800 LXI car from the opposite party. The complainant’s allegation is that opposite party did not give the assured offer as Govt. Employees bonus, Two wheeler owners offer and renewal of handling charge. The complainants contacted the opposite party for return the amounts. But he has denied the complainant’s demand. The opposite party is liable to pay the offered amount of Rs.7,500/-. The non-payment of the offered amount by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and hence they are liable to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the copy of the proforma invoice dated 19.02.2015 for Rs.3,17,144/- issued by the opposite party in the name of the 2nd complainant. Ext.A2 series are the receipt of order booking issued by the opposite party on 11.02.2015 and the cash receipt dated 19.02.2015 for Rs.1,16,144/-. Ext.A3 is the copy of the press release dated 04.11.2015 issued by the Transport Commissioner. Ext.A4 is the copy of the identity card (subject to proof) of the 2nd complainant which shown that she is a Govt. Employee.
8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that they gave all the officers except Govt. Employees discount because the complainants were not produced the required documents. The complainants were not paid any handling charges. So the complainants are not entitled to get any refund. So there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. Though opposite party raised such a contention in his version, he has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in his favour for substantiating his contention. But the opposite party cross-examined the complainant. Even though, the opposite party cross-examined PW1 nothing brought out to disbelieve PW1’s case.
9. On the basis of the above contentions and arguments of the parties, it is found that the only dispute between the parties are in respect of the handling charge. According to the complainants, the opposite party did not provide the Govt. Employer offer, two wheeler offer and handling charges. So according to the complainants, the non-payment of the offered amount and refund of the handling charge and dishonouring their demand for the same is an unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. But according to the opposite party, the offering demand except Govt. Employees offer are given to the complainants at the time of purchasing the vehicle hence he has not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant, it can be seen that the complainant purchased a vehicle on 19.02.2015 for Rs.3,17,144/- and it is evident from Ext.A1 and A2. The deposition of the 2nd complainant supports the allegation of the complainant. In Ext.A1, it is proved that the opposite party reduced an amount of Rs.30,000/- only. In the version opposite party stated that he had reduced Rs.45,350/- but he could not prove this fact through any document. As per Ext.A3, the Circular issued by the Transport Commissioner dated 04.11.2015 show that the producer or the dealer of the vehicle are strongly restricted from receiving any excess amount than show room price or any handling charge at the time of delivery of the vehicle. The acceptance of excess amount is against the direction of the Govt. and against the Rule 81 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule. In this case, Ext.A1 document shows that the complainant paid Rs.6,000/- as handling charge to the opposite party at the time of purchase of the vehicle. Ext.A4 is the copy of the identity card of the 2nd complainant, which shows that she is a Govt. Employer. Therefore, we find that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and hence this complaint is allowable. Everything happened due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party, therefore the opposite party is liable to the complainants loss and sufferings. The complainant is succeed to prove the case. Hence the complaint is allowable Point No.1 is found accordingly.
10. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) as two wheeler owner’s offer, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as Govt. Employer bonus and Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as handling charge along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) (Total Rs.21,000/-) to the complainants within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants are allowed to realize the whole amount ordered herein above with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2016.
(Sd/-)
Sheela Jacob,
(Member – II),
Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants:
PW1 : Biju A.P
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 : Copy of the proforma invoice dated 19.02.2015 for Rs.3,17,144/- issued
by the opposite party in the name of the 2nd complainant.
A2 series : Receipt of order booking issued by the opposite party on
11.02.2015 and the cash receipt dated 19.02.2015
for Rs.1,16,144/-.
A3 : Copy of the press release dated 04.11.2015 issued by the
Transport Commissioner.
A4 : Copy of the identity card (subject to proof) of the 2nd complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Biju. A.P, Alumvila Padinjattethil, Kulakkada Kizhakku. P.O.,
Kottarakkara (Via), Kollam Dist. – 691 521.
(2) Shiney. P.J, Panthalody Kizhakkethil House,
Vazhamuttom East. P.O.,
Mallassery, Pathanamthitta.
(3) Manager, (Sales), Indus Motors, Kainikkara Complex,
Kumbazha. P.O., Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
