KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL. 779/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 8.9.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.476/99 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER M/s Deedi Automobiles, Kaimanam, Thiruvananthpauram Rep. By its Managing Partner. : APPELLANT (By Advs.S.Ajith & G.Arun) M.Parameswarankutty, Prakash Bhavan, : RESPONDENT Venniyoor, Vengannoor.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.476/99 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2200/- with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he booked a Bajaj Auto rikshaw with the opposite party on 10.9.98 for a sum of Rs.58265/-. He had remitted the amount for a fare meter also. When the vehicle was delivered the meter was not supplied. The invoice contained the price for the fare meter and the same included in the amount deposited on 10.9.98 and hence he has sought for the price of the meter ie Rs.2200/- and compensation. 3. On the other hand the opposite parties have contended that the price of the vehicle at the time of delivery was Rs. 58755/- and the insurance amount was Rs.1120/- and hence the total amount worked out to Rs.59875/-. The balance amount of Rs.1610/- due from the complainant was collected at the time of delivery. The price of the meter was included only in the invoice. It is specifically mentioned in the proforma invoice issued for receipt of Rs.58265/- that the price at the time of delivery will be applicabale. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 Exts.P1 to P4 and D1. The Forum held that as the entire amount has been deposited the opposite party/appellant is liable to deliver the auto rikshaw at the rate mentioned in the proforma invoice ie Ext.P1 and ordered accordingly. We find that in view of the rider in Ext.P1 invoice that the price at the time of delivery will be applicable the opposite party cannot be make liable to deliver the vehicle at the rate mentioned in the proforma invoice. Evidently the price had gone up and the insurance is not included in the proforma invoice. In the circumstances we find that the total amount remitted on 10.9.98 including the price of the fare meter was not sufficient to meet the enhanced price of the vehicle. Hence the appellant cannot be compelled to give delivery of the fare meter. Hence the order of the Forum cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
