SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of  Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the  opposite parties to pay a total compensation and cost of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant for the  deficiency of service  on their part.

The case of the complainant in brief:

   The complainant had purchased  Indus Motor car on 18/1/2018 for an amount of Rs.8,59,459/- from 1^st OP.  At the time of purchase of vehicle 1^st OP represented that there is an offer in connection with the sale of vehicle  in 2018 new year offer regarding  Nexa, ie Rs.50,000/- as old car’s exchange offer, Rs.10,000/- as Govt. employee offer and Rs.20,000/- as new year corporate offer.  Then the complainant informed the agent of 1^st OP that he is a retired army officer and who got low price of car as per CSD customer.  Then the 1^st OP represented and agreed that the offer will be given within few days.  Only believing the words of 1^st OP the complainant exchanged his old car and agreed to purchase the  Ciaz Alpha model car.  Thereafter the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.11,000/- to 1^st OP on 18/12/2017.  Moreover the complainant agreed to purchase the Indus Nexa  through the  Kochi agent CSD canteen depo at Kochi and the  amount paid through RTG’s  of Rs.8,59,459/- and to receive the purchase order also.  Thereafter on 2/2/2018 the complainant understood that the  vehicle supplied by 1^st OP to the  complainant was on 2017 model.  So the 1^st OP was cheated the complainant by denying the exchange offer, new year offer and purchase  a car at discount  rate from CSD canteen.  The act of OPs the  complainant caused  much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

      After filing the complaint notice issued to both OPs. After receiving  the notice both OP’s filed their  written  version  . The 1^st OP  submits that the complainant had purchased Maruti Suzuki Ciaz Alpha model car is Rs.8,59,459/-.  After satisfying with the complainant’s requirements, the  complainant had booked the Ciaz car and paying an advance amount of Rs.11,000/- to OP.  Thereafter the complainant paid the balance amount to 1^st OP through RTGS.  The 1^st OP had arranged the sale of the car at the CSD rate prevailing in January 2018 which was Rs.9,43,542.09/- and the car sold to the complainant was invoiced at this price.  Moreover the complainant has exchanged his old vehicle KL 59.C-4427.  The ex-showroom price of the new car was Rs.11,28,734/-.  The complainant was also given the exchange benefit of Rs.50,000/- for his old car.  The complainant was also refunded Rs.25,000/- as the new year bonus also.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st OP and the complaint may be dismissed.

   2^nd OP contended  that he is a separate and  independent legal entity to the complainant.  There is no direct relationship with the complainant.  OPs 1&2 are the relationship between the principal-to- principal basis.  2^nd OP states that the vehicle  purchased by the complainant from 1^st OP under its own invoice and sale certificate as per the terms and conditions.  So there is no cause of action against 2^nd OP.  So the complainant is not entitled to any relief from 2^nd OP.  So the complaint against 2^nd OP may be dismissed.

       On the  basis of the rival contentions  by  the pleadings the following issues   were framed for  considerations

1. Whether there is any deficiency  of service on the part of  the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is  entitled for  any relief?
3.  Relief and cost.

       The   evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW 1 and   Exts.A1 to 4  were  marked .  From the   side of  OPs, DW1 was examined , no documents marked.

Issue No.1:

         The  complainant adduced evidence  before the commission by submitting  his  chief  affidavit  in lieu  of his chief examination to the  tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying  the contentions in the version.  PW1 was cross  examined  by  OP’s.  The  documents Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his part to substantiate his case. According to the complainant as per Ext.A1 the proforma invoice dtd.16/12/2017 shows the Ex-showroom price of Nexa Ciaz Alpha petrol  car Rs.8,50,827/-.  In Ext.A2 dtd.16/12/2017 clearly  shows that the cost of one new Maruti Ciaz Alpha petrol car for Rs.8,59,459/-.  But in CDS Cochi dtd.16/1/2018 the cost of Maruti Ciaz Alpha petrol including taxes Rs.8,54,591/-.  At the time of evidence PW1 stated that “ OP.NO.1 ഉം ഞനുമായി സംസാരിച്ചിരുന്നു.  അതുപ്രകാരം 4865/- രൂപ OP.NO.1എനിക്ക് തന്നിട്ടുണ്ട്. OP.NO.1മായി സംസാരിച്ച് പരാതി തീർന്നതിന്ർറെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലാണ് മേൽ പണം തന്നത് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു  പരാതി തീർന്നിട്ടില്ല.  As per Ext.A4 the delivery receipt the complainant’s old vehicle KL-59-C-4427 exchanged for an amount of Rs.1,44,000/-.  But the 1^st OP not complied the exchange offer also.  But in DW1’s evidence he states that cash  അടച്ച് purchase order   കരസ്ഥമാക്കിയ ശേഷം അതിന്ർറെ price dealer 10 ദിവസത്തിനുശേഷം വീണ്ടും മാറ്റുന്നത്. ശരിയോ തെറ്റോ? തെറ്റാണ്. Moreover DW1 stated that Rs.80,000/- offer  പറഞ്ഞ് പരാതിക്കാരന് നൽകാത്തത്  ശരിയോ തെറ്റോ? തെറ്റാണ്. In this case the complainant has not produced any documents or witness  except the oral  evidence of PW1 to prove that the 1^st OP has offered the exchange bonus Rs.50,000/-, Govt. employee  offer Rs.10,000/- and new year  2018 offer Rs.20,000/-.  But in version 1^st OP admits that all offers are fulfilled and the complainant is satisfied with the talk of 1^st OP and the complainant is already settled the matter between the parties also.  So PW1’s evidence shows that the  act of 1^st OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st OP. Hence the issue No.1 found infavour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2&3:

As discussed above since there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st OP. The complainant is entitled for appropriate relief also. Due to the aforesaid latches the complainant has suffered much mental  agony ,hardship and loss.  We the commission fixed the compensation and cost of  Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.  Thus  the issue No.2 &3 are also  answered accordingly.

     In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the 1^st opposite party  to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and litigation cost to the complainant   within  30 days  of  receipt  of this order.    In default  the amount of Rs. 25,000/-  carries interest @9% per annum  from the date of order till  realization .  Failing which the  complainant is  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts.

A1-Proforma invoice dtd.16/12/2017

A2- Reply of OP dtd.16/12/17

A3- Tax invoice dtd.27/1/18

A4- Delivery receipt

PW1-Chittaranjan.V.N-complainant

DW1-E.T.Babu - OP

  Sd/                                                              Sd/                                                    Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                  MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew.                            Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                                    /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR