Kerala

Trissur

CC/08/660

E.R.Venugopalan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Koyenco Autos Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.A.D.Benny

02 Jan 2010

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/660

E.R.Venugopalan
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Koyenco Autos Pvt Ltd
The Manager
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. E.R.Venugopalan

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Koyenco Autos Pvt Ltd 2. The Manager

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Adv.A.D.Benny

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
 
            The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant bought a XETA GLS Car having chasis No.600631 ESZ P 86495 and Engine No.475 S 156 ESZ P 84674 from the respondents. The respondents levied Rs.2,99,867/- as its price. But as per the tax invoice dated 30.6.07 issued by the respondents the price of the vehicle was Rs.2,79,866/-. The respondents also received Rs.1000/- as advance. But it was not refunded or adjusted towards the price. Since this amounts to unfair trade practice a lawyer notice was issued on 8.10.2007. But there was no remedy. Hence the complaint.
 
            2. The respondents called absent and set exparte.
 
            3. The complainant filed affidavit and produced documents to prove his case. They are marked as Ext. P1 to P3.
 
            4. The case of the complainant is that on buying the XETA GLS car from the respondents they collected Rs.20,001/- in excess from him as price. At the same time he had paid Rs.1000/- as advance. This advance amount has not been refunded or adjusted towards price. So the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.20,001/-. There is no evidence to the evidence of the complainant.
 
            5. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return the complainant the advance amount and Rs.20,001/- (Rupees twenty thousand and one only) the excess amount collected from him with Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost within one month.
 

             Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 2nd day of January 2010.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S