DATE OF FILING : 22/11/17

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  22nd day of February  2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 245/2017

Between

Complainant       :  Dr.Sharun George Mammen,

                                                                            House No.12/226, New Munnar,

                                                                            Munnar P.O., Idukki. 

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Party                                          :   1 .  The Manager, 

                                                                               Kairali Ford, Kadathy Market P.O.,

                                                                               Muvattupuzha

                                                                         2 .  Abhijith,  Sales Executive,

                                                                               Kairali Ford, Kadathy Market P.O.,

                                                                               Muvattupuzha

(Both by Adv: Binu Mathew)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case  of the complainant is that,  

 

The complainant  booked a Ford Figo Car from the first  opposite party at Munnar on 08/05/17 and paid Rs.5,000/- as advance.  At the time of booking the vehicle the opposite parties 1 and 2 offered Rs.15,000/- as cash discount, Rs12,000/- as encashment benefit and also agreed to give a Fog lamp.  Along with these benefit opposite parties further offered Rs.10,000/- as sales benefit and it will be paid after 90 days of the delivery of the vehicle.  The complainant took delivery of the vehicle and after 90 days of its delivery the opposite parties 1 and 2 evaded from paying the cash discount of Rs.10,000/-.  The denial of the sale offer is unfair trade practice against this the complainant approached this Forum, seeking relief such as to direct the opposite parties to pay the sale offer along with cost and compensation.

 

Upon notices opposite parties entered appearance and filed reply version  admitting  the  sale  of  the vehicle to the complainant. In their version

                                                                                                                           (Cont....2)

-2-

opposite parties challenged the maintainability of the complaint as a primary issue.   In their version opposite parties further stated that, the opposite parties carried on their business at Ernakulam, and there is no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint herein.  The opposite parties  denied the offer of Rs.10,000/- which is agreed to pay after 90 days of the delivery of the vehicle.  Opposite parties further contented that such allegation are mere stories concocted to create a non-existing cause of action for the purpose of this complaint.   There is no obligation for the opposite parties to provide any cash discount of Rs.10,000/- as stated in the complaint and hence there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties further contented that at the request of the complainant, the opposite  parties finance coordinator arranged finance from Muthoot Finance.  The complainant had requested to avail 100% loan on ex-showroom price, but only 90% of the ex-showroom price of the vehicle was allowed by the financier.  After availing the loan the complainant was demanding the difference amount as discount.  The opposite parties were not amenable to such illegal demands and hence the complainant had threatened to file false complaint to vex and harass the opposite parties and to cause financial loss to them.  Hence the complaint is filed without bonafides and is liable to be dismissed.

 

The evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 were marked.  Ext.P1 is the copy of RC book, Ext.P2 is the copy of bill, Ext.P3 is the print out of Whats App message, Ext.P4 is the vehicle sale bill dated 31/03/17.

 

From the defence side no oral or documentary evidence adduced.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- we have heard the counsel for both sides and had gone through the evidence on record.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Ford Figo Car from the first opposite party and delivered it to him on 05/04/17.  As per  Ext. P1 copy of RC book, it is seen that vehicle was delivered

                                                                                                                            (Cont....3)

 

-3-

 

on 04/04/17.  Even though the opposite parties stated the date of delivery was on 08/05/17, no evidence is adduced.  Hence we are admitting the version of the complainant.  It is also adduced that, the second opposite party being the authorised agent of the fist opposite party given some offer at the time of booking the vehicle.  Some of the offers are fulfilled.  But an amount of Rs.10,000/- which the opposite parties offered as cash discount was not fulfilled.  Against this the complainant filed this petition alleging unfair trade practice.  But this offer is denied by the first opposite party in their detailed reply version.  But on the other hand complainant produced Ext.P3 Whats App chatting message between the complainant and Kairali ford, authorised agent.  In this message the authorised agent categorically stated that he will disburse the offered cash discount immediately.  This document is not challenged by the opposite parties or opposite parties failed to produce any evidence to counter this admission of the agent for and on behalf of the first opposite party.  It is a usual practice that, the authorised sale executives giving much offers for selling their vehicle to the customer who approached them, and it is also quite natural that, after the deal they will withdraw  from some of the offers.

 

In the instant case, complainant is a practising doctor and having much value in his each and every seconds of time.  Without a valid or reasonable cause, he cannot spent his time in conducting a case.  We are of the considered view that the contention of the complainant is genuine and he proved his averrment with clear and cogent evidence like the print out of Whatts App message.  No counter evidence is produced by the opposite parties to dis believe the averrments of the complainant or shaken the evidence which is put forwarded by the complainant.

 

On the basis of above said discussion the complaint allowed.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay to Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with 12% interest from the 90th  day of the delivery of the vehicle.  ie, from 05/07/17, till the payment.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as  compensation  and  Rs.2000/- as  litigation  cost  jointly  to  the 

 

 

                                                                                                                          (Cont....4)

 

-4-

complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd  day of February, 2019.

 

                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                         SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                      SMT.ASAMOL P.  (MEMBER)

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               - Sharon George Mammen

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  The copy of RC book

Ext.P2            -  The copy of bill

Ext.P3          - The print out of Whats App message

Ext.P4         - The vehicle sale bill dated 31/03/17

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

          Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT