D.o.F:19/01/07

D.o.O:06/5/09

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.03/07

                     Dated this, the  06^th    day of May  2009

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                                : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI                         : MEMBER

A.K.Abdulrahiman Haji,

S/o Kunhimahinkutty Haji,

R/at Malige Valappil House,                    : Complainant

Po.Adhur, Mulleria,,Kasaragod.

1. The Manager,

     Koyenco Autos Pvt.Ltd,

     Koyenco House, West Hill,Calicut.    : Opposite parties

2. The Manager,

    Koyenco Autos Pvt.Ltd,

     Kannur Branch, Abana Complex,

       Pallikkunnu,Kannur.

                                                                     ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT

Tersely stated:

   The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party committed unfair trade practice by delivering him a vehicle of low priced model (Tata Indica DLS) for which the price of a superior model(Indica DLG) is charged.  Thereby he sustained a monetary loss of Rs.17000/-.

2.   The defense set up by the opposite party is that the complainant opted the low priced Tata Indica DLS model of  the vehicle after paying the price of the higher priced Tata Indica DLG model.  Therefore even after adjusting the price of  accessories purchased, a sum of Rs.3690/- was due to the complainant but  complainant refused to accept the said amount and asked for more discount.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

3.   The Tata Indica car in dispute was brought to the premises of the Forum for inspection.  On the rear side of the vehicle the logo DLG is seen  to appear that it is a Tata Indica DLG model vehicle.  But on the front side inside the bonnet on the top  of engine case a metal plate is fixed on that the chassis No, the bar code and the model name  as imprinted.   In that the model name is shown as DLS.   The features of the car is also that of the model DLS and not  that of  DLG.

 4.   The complainant filed affidavit and Exts.A1 to A7 marked.    He faced cross examination by the counsel for opposite party.  Opposite party’s witness examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B6 marked.

5.   The complainant affirmed in his  affidavit that he took delivery of the car without knowing  that the car delivered is another class and from R.T.Office he came to know that it is DLS model.  At that time the price difference between DLS model car and DLG model was RS.17000/-.  According to the opposite party, complainant purchased accessories for the balance amount  and a photostat copy of one tax invoice is produced showing the purchase of some car accessories worth Rs.14000/-.  But the complainant denied the purchase of said accessories from opposite party  and he stated that the accessories were purchased from Mangalore.

6.   The contention taken by the opposite party that after remitting the price of the DLG model car the complainant  Abdul Rahiman  Haji opted  to purchase DLS model is not believable since the  rear on external appearance the car was a DLG model.   Had it been  that he opted   the DLS model,  then the logo fixed on the car would have been that of DLS model and the opposite party has no case that the metallic logo of DLG is subsequently fixed by complainant for the purpose of the case.  Therefore it is clear that the  complainant was subjected to a unscrupulous exploitation and thereby he sustained a monetary loss of Rs.17000/- apart from mental agony and hardships.  It is pertinent to note that  every dealer of vehicles used to provide some car accessories as  compliment as part of their sales promotions .  The opposite party have no case that they have  supplied any such accessories as compliments.  Moreover  even according to them a sum of Rs.3690/- is kept by them that the complainant refused to accept   demanding more discount, this contention is not at all believable.

7.   Therefore, it is clear that the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice as envisaged  U/S 2(1)(r ) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act and they are liable to compensate the complainant for the same.  

8.   The complaint is therefore allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund  Rs.17000/- that is excessively collected from the complainant with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and a cost of Rs.3000/-.  The time for payment is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of order, failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @15% per annum for Rs.17000/- from the date of complaint  by way of punitive compensation.

 MEMBER                                       MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

Exts:

A1-  22/8/06- copy of DD

A2-copy of cash receipt,

A3-31/10/06- copy of lawyer notice

A4-Acknowledgment

A5-receipt dt.1/11/06.

A6-7/8/05 proforma  invoice

A7, A7(a)-Photographs

B1& B2- copy of invoice

B3-Tax invoice

B4-reply notice with undelivered cover

B5- returned cover

B6-copy of extract of ledger account

PW1- A.K.Abdulrahiman Haji- complainant.

DW1- Ambujakshan.K- witness of  opposite party

  MEMBER                                      MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT

 eva/

                                                                         /