CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member.
CC.No.76/06 Thursday, the day of 25th, February, 2010.
Petitioner K.Chandrasekharan Nair Aswathy Vihar Pathanamthitta. (Adv.P.A.Rabeez) Vs. Opposite parties. 1. Kerala Cars (Pvt.) Ltd 508-a, Illikkattu buildings Kunamthai, Edappally Cochin-682 024. 2. Kerala Cars (Pvt.) Ltd. MGF Buildings MC road, Nagambadom SH Mount P.O. Kottayam. (Adv.George C.Kurivilla) O R D E R The crux of the complainant's is as follows. The complainant purchased a Ford Ikon (Model 1.3 Josh 100) car from the second opposite party. The price of the car as per the invoice is Rs.5,07,067/- including cost of accessories. Towards the purchase price the complainant paid an advance of Rs.5000/- by cash on 30-8-2005 when the car was booked. On 5-9-2005, the complainant paid Rs.4,27,400/- and also paid Rs.1,00,000/- by way of loan agreement dt. 24-9-05 with the second opposite party. Thus towards the purchase price the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.5,32,400/- in toto instead of Rs.5,07,067/-. Immediately after knowing about the same he contacted the respondents several times personally and over phone and demanded the excess money paid but no satisfactory reply was given. The complainant alleged that the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part resulting in unlawful gain to the opposite parties and thereby -2- causing unlawful loss to the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to return the excess amount of Rs.25,333/- collected as purchase price, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and hardship caused and litigation cost. The first and second opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions. (I) The petition is not main-tenable because it is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The invoice price of Ford Ikon car is Rs.4,81,564/- only. On 5-9-2005, the petitioner paid Rs.4,27,400/- with the second opposite party, and an amount of Rs.91,666/- on 8-9-05 by way of loan. In addition to that the petitioner had purchased accessories worth Rs.25,503/- as per bill No.2237 dt. 6-9-05 and an amount of Rs.17,436/- was also paid for taking vehicle Insurance premimum with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thus in total the petitioner had paid only Rs.5,24,503/-. The claim of the petitioner demanding Rs.16,999/-is only on the basis of a wrong notion. The opposite parties did not collect any excess amount from the petitioner at any time. All the amendments made by the complainant is only after the filing of version and only with an intention to fill up laccuna and is a foul practice. The statement of accounts are not correct and it is erronuous. The opposite parties are not liable to return or refund any amount to the petitioner.
Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the petition with compensatory costs to them.
-3- Points for consideration are: (I) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and costs?
Point No.1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record by the petitioner. No evidence is adduced by the opposite parties. The invoice dtd. 8/9/05 is produced and marked as exhibit A6. As per exhibit A6, the amount to be collected is Rs.4,81,564/-. The invoice dt. 6/9/05 is produced and marked as exhibit A7. As per ext.A7 the amount to be paid for the accessories is Rs.25,503/-. So from exhibits A6 and A7, it is clear that for the purchase of Ford Ikon car the petitioner had to spend a total amount of Rs.5,07,067/-. Whereas the first opposite party contented that the invoice price of Ford Ikon (Model 1:3 Josh 100) car is Rs.4,81,564/- only. The payments admitted by the first opposite party in their version are listed below. Amount paid by the petitioner. Date of payment Mode of payment. Rs.5000 30-8-2005 as cash towards advance. Rs.4,27,400/- 5-9-2005 by cash. Rs.91,666/- 8-9-2005 by loan Rs.25,503/- 6-9-2005 by cash towards price pf accessories. Rs.17,436/- ---- For taking insurance.
Total amount paid by the petitioner as per the above said admission is Rs.5,67,005/-. Inspite of the aforesaid admission the first opposite party contented that the petitioner had paid only Rs.5,24,503/- to them. The original receipt dt. 5-9-05 for Rs.4,27,400/- is produced and marked as exhibit A1. The receipt dt. 30/8/05 for Rs.5000/- is also produced and marked as exhibit
-4- A2. On scanning exhibits A1 & A2, it is understood that the petitioner had paid a total amount of Rs.4,32,400/- by way of cash to the opposite parties. The petitioner averred that the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was arranged by way of loan agreement with the second opposite party. The petitioner further averred that the said loan amount was completely repaid. The petitioner filed IA 800/09 before the forum to direct the opposite parties to produce the vehicle loan statement. The said IA was heard and allowed directing the opposite party to produce the document or file affidavit. But the opposite parties had neither produced the document nor filed an affidavit. The inference that can be drawn from the non production of the said document is that if produced the said document would have definitely gone against the case of the opposite parties. As no evidence is produced by the opposite parties to prove that the loan amount was 91,666/- only, we are constrained to rely on the petitioner's averment that Rs.1,00,000/- was arranged by way of loan. After scanning the entire material placed on evidence, it is found that the petitioner had paid Rs.4,32,400/- by way of cash and Rs.1,00,000/- by way of loan. That means the petitioner had paid total amount of Rs.5,32,400/- to the opposite parties instead of the actual payment of Rs.5,07,067/-. The petitioner issued a lawyer's notice dt. 22/12/05 to the opposite parties demanding the refund of excess amount paid. The office copy of the notice is produced and marked as exhibit A3. It is significant to note that even on receipt of the said notice no step had been taken by the opposite parties to return the excess price received. In our view the act of the opposite parties in collecting excess money and not returning the said excess amount even on demand is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly. Point No.2. In view of the findings in point No.1 the petition is allowed.
-5- The opposite parties will jointly and severally, pay Rs.25,333/- to the petitioner along with a compensation of Rs.5000/- towards the mental agony and hardships caused and a litigation cost of Rs.2000/-. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of its copy failing which the abovementioned sums will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realisation. Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sd/- Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/- Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member. Sd/- APPENDIX Documents of the petitioner. Ext.A1 Copy of receipt dt. 5.9.2005 Ext.A2 Copy of receipt dt. 30-8-2005 Ext.A3 Office copy of lawyer's notice dt. 22/12/2005 Ext.A4 Postal receipt dt. 23.12.2005 Ext.Ar(a) Postal receipt Ext.A5 Acknowledgement card dt. 24.12.05 Ext.A5(a) Acknowledgement card Ext.A6 Copy of invoice dt. 8-9-05 Ext.A7 Bill for accessories dt. 3-9-05. Documents of the opposite parties. NIL. By Orders,
Senior Superintendent. Kgr/5 copies.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
