SRI. SAJEESH.K.P    : MEMBER

    The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019  seeking direction against the  OP to deliver the Tata TiagoXT model car which he intended to booked and also to repay the excessive amount which OP collected from  the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation  to the complainant.

 Complaint in brief :-

  According to the complaint  On 18/3/2020 complainant approached OP’s show room to purchase Tata TiagoXT model car.  But on March 19^th 2020 complainant booked Tata TiagoXE model car by paying Rs.3000/-  as token amount on the promise by OP that  power window and central lock system will be provided in the aforesaid model on low cost.  At the time of booking, after  deducting discount, exchange bonus, the on road price of  XE model was Rs.5,02,000/-.  On 21/3/2020, complainant obtained a loan  Rs.4,40,000/- from Kerala Gramin Bank, Pinarayi Branch.  The OP’s  delivered the vehicle only on June 19^th 2020 and OP obtained total amount of Rs. 5,43,000/- inclusive of exchange  and booking amount from complainant.  According to complainant, the vehicle value decreased to 4,97,000/- during the month of May-June.  Hence OP told that they will return Rs.41,000/- , which was collected as excessive amount from  the complainant, but on July 21^st 2020, complainant got 13,226/- towards his bank account and so far no balance amount was credited to OP.  Moreover, according to complainant booked the vehicle in order to take his mother to the hospital at Ernakulam and  complainant waited 3 months after booking and he suffered monetary loss during the  3 months which he  waited for the  delivery of  vehicle.  Hence this complaint.

         After filing this complaint, commission has sent notice  to  OP and  OP received  the notice and  entered  appearance before the commission and filed his version accordingly.

Version of   OP in brief:

    The OP denies the entire allegation except those admitted.  The OP admitted that complainant booked  Tata TiagoXT model car in March 2020 and the on road price was Rs.502000/- and  assessed Rs.1,00,000/- for his old car  and the delivery  was made on 16/6/2020 and the payment of Rs.3000/- as advance.  But  OP contended that they never advised  complainant to purchase Tata TiagoXE which  OP can provide extra features on cheap rate.  The OP explained the delay of delivery was only due to the national wide lock down due to the pandemic and there after the road tax  was raised.  Moreover the OP was not about the sanction of loan.  The price of the vehicle was not increased in the month of May 2020.  The OP never received any excess amount higher than the price value of vehicle from complainant and the OP was constrained to pay Rs.13,226/- because the complainant repeatedly disturbed OP’s during the business hours.  The complainant is making concocted stories and the  complaint is liable to be dismissed.

       Due to the rival contentions raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of  OP?
2. Whether there is any  compensation  &  cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence from both parties. The  complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to A3.  Ext.A1 is the copy  of tax invoice  issued by OP, Ext.A2 is the vehicle tax, registration fee etc receipt issued by SRTO Thalassery and Ext.A3 is the copy of insurance policy issued by the Oritental Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainant adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as PW1. OP not cross examined by  PW1.  From the side of OP there is no oral or documentary evidence.

Issue No.1&2

   On the perusal of documents produced by  parties to this case,  the commission  answered the  issues accordingly.  As per Exts.A1&A2, it is seen that  a total amount of Rs.502370/- is paid by complainant.  Both parties agreed that the purchase price Tata Tiago XT model  vehicle is Rs.502000/-.  The complainant raised the contention that Rs.543000/- in total collected by OP excessively.  But no documentary evidence produced by complainant to prove this aspect.  Moreover, there is no documentary evidence produced by complainant with regard to the loan amount  he availed .  The delay in delivery of the vehicle is well explained by OP and the OP here is not responsible for the act taken by government  National wide during pandemic  as it is  inevitable . The purchase of vehicle has at any manufacturing defect or any other complaint and also there is no evidence to show that  the price of the vehicle  he booked is reduced during the month of May-June and no evidence to show that the booked  for Tata Tiago XT model .  The commission looked in to the evidence produced by  the complainant and it is found that the complainant failed to prove the unjust enrichment  obtained by OP , and  hence  the Commission  came into a conclusion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with no compensation  and cost.

   In the result the complaint is dismissed , no cost.

Exts:

 A1- Photo copy of tax invoice

A2-Vehicle tax and registration fee receipt

A3- copy of insurance policy

PW1-Fairos .A- complainant.

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR