SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, for getting an order directing opposite party No.1 to return the excess amount of Rs.2,19,845/- collected from the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle with 12% interest together with Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party and cost of the proceedings of the complaint.
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant intended to purchase Tata LPT 1918 5L TURBOTROWN BS-IV Model Truck at the cost of Rs.12,00,000/- from the OP. The OP agreed and ready to sold the truck to the complainant for the above mentioned sale price for a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- on 17/08/2019. The total vehicle loan financed by the ICICI Bank for purchasing the truck to the complainant is Rs.17,19,540/-. The entire loan amount financed by the ICICI Bank, Kannur is transferred to the OP’s bank account on 30/08/2019 for purchasing the truck. Out of the total vehicle loan amount transferred in OP’s bank account through complainant’s bank, the OP given a cheque for Rs.2,99,695/- for body work of the truck to the complainant. The complainant has done the body work of his vehicle from Surya Lory Body labour works, Namakkal, Thamil Nadu. The total amount spend by the complainant for body work of Rs. 3,40,000/-. The OP unnecessarily delayed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant even after received the entire amount of vehicle through complainants bank ICICI Bank, that will caused heavy financial loss and mental tension to the complainant. The complainant bound to repay the loan amount even before received the vehicle from the OP due to the delay to deliver the vehicle to the complainant by the OP in time. In addition to that complainant has spend huge amount of Rs.13,926/- for getting temporary permit to the complainant’s vehicle because of the non-delivery of vehicle to the complainant in time by the OP. The OP done grave deficiency of service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. At the time of purchase OP agreed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant for Rs.12,00,000/- whereas they have received Rs.17,19,540/- through complainant’s bank ICICI Bank, Kannur for the cost of the vehicle. The balance amount due to the complainant by the OP Rs.2,19,845/- The complainant’s husband Ummer has asked several times to the OP to return the balance amount due to the complainant. Whereas one or other reasons OP intentionally delaying the tactics of non-payment of the balance amount due to the complainant. The OP is doing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by collecting excess amount from the complainant for the vehicle. So the OP is bound to return the excess amount collected from the complainant to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
After receiving notice OP1 filed version stating that it is submitted that, the OP had received only an amount of Rs.16,94,367 from the financier. The deductions/concessions for the purchase of vehicles are provided by the manufacturer, TATA herein. The OP is only a dealer of the TATA Motors and is acting for and on behalf of the TATA Motors. The amount received from the complainant as the price of the vehicle is credited to the account of the TATA Motors. It is also submitted that the above complaint not maintainable, as the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act; 1986. It is pertinent to note that the vehicle purchased by the complainant is a high profile commercial vehicle and the complainant had failed to produce driving license, which enabled her to drive the respective vehicle. Therefore, the 2nd complainant is not a consumer by virtue of Sec.2(d)(i) and (ii)of the Act. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. The contention of the complainant that, the OP had agreed to sell the vehicle to the complainant at the rate of Rs.12,00,000/- is specifically denied by the OP. It is submitted by this OP that, the ex-showroom price of the vehicle, excluding Tax, Insurance, registration etc is Rs.20,67,780/-. As per the request of the husband of the complainant, who had approached the OP for purchasing the vehicle, the ex-showroom price was reduced to Rs.16,02,930/-, as the deduction was granted by the TATA Motors. The further rrequest of the complainants husband for concession was also approved by the TATA Motors for Rs.91,302.09/- reducing the unit price of the vehicle Rs.15,11,627.91/- for the chassis of the vehicle. Adding this amount with the Tax and Kerala Flood Cess, the OP had offered to sell the subject matter vehicle to the complainant for Rs.19,50,000/-, as per Tax Invoice dated 30/08/2019. On 30/08/2019 itself, an amount of Rs.16,94,367/- was paid by the complainant, through her financier, ICICI Bank. But the contention of the complainant that, the entire finance amount of Rs.17,19,540/- was credited to the OP from the financier for an on behalf of the complainant is specifically denied. It is further submitted that, the complainant had not entrusted the vehicle with the OP for the body work of the same. If the complainant had entrusted the vehicle with the OP to do the bodywork, the complainant is bound to pay amount for the same. The OP is not bound to provide any amount of money to the complainant for getting the body work from 3rd party body workers. As there was some delay for the receipt of the vehicle from the manufacturer, the OP could not hand over the same to the complainant, even if the amount was received by them on 30/08/2019. So, as per the demand of the husband of the complainant, who was acting for and on behalf of the complainant had demanded of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for the delay caused. On getting approval from the TATA Motors, the unit price of the vehicle was fixed as Rs.13,50,000/-. After deducting the compensation of Rs.30,000/- for delay and adding the expenses of Rs.74,772/- for Registration expenses, Insurance premium and Tax amount, the amount recoverable from the complainant had reached Rs.13,94,772/-. As the OP had already received the finance amount of Rs.16,94,367 from the complainant by way of finance; the balance amount of Rs.2,99,695/- was returned to the complainant by way of cheque. Hence the contention of the complainant that, the cheque received from the OP for Rs.2,99,695/- was mount granted by the OP for body work of the vehicle is specifically denied. The complainant had accepted delivery of the vehicle on 30/09/2019 on complete satisfaction and on availing a total discount of Rs.7,47,780/-. Hence the complainant is not entitled to recover any amount for money from the OP. So the complainant is not entitled to recover any amount of money from the OP and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
After filing version by OP NO.1 complainant has filed IA No.77/2020 on 18/01/2021 and impleaded OPs 2 and 3 as additional OP.
OP No.2 and 3 filed separate version. OP2 has stated that It is stated that the relationship between this OP and its dealer, viz., the 1st OP is of principal to principal and this OP is in no way liable or responsible for the alleged transactions between the complainant and the 14st OP. This OP is further instructed to state that in addition to the discount of Rs.7,17,780/- that was duly agreed between the parties as per a memorandum of settlement entered into between the complainant and the 1st OP, the 1st OP had provided an additional cash discount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle by her. The OP is also instructed to state that the 1st OP had refunded to the complainant the amount of Rs.2,19,845/-at the time of delivery of the vehicle. There has been no deficiency in-service or unfair trade practice on the part of this OP as alleged. Hence prayed of the dismissal of complaint.
OP3 pleaded that this OP admits that they have granted the complainant a loan of Rs.17,19,540/- after complying all the formalities. The complainant had executed preliminary credit facility application dated 03/08/2019. Thereafter, the complainant had executed Deed of Hypothecation on 28/08/2019. Te complainant has given 60 monthly installment @ of Rs.11.65% interest commencing from 22/10/2019 to 22/09/2024. The payment was reschedule to 22/06/2025 due to Covid pandemic. The monthly installment payable is Rs.38,227/-. The complainant has undertaken that she will repay the monthly installments without any default. This OP is not aware of delaying body work, labour work done form Tamilnadu. This OP is not liable for delay of body labour work. This OP disputes the averment that value of vehicle is only 12 lakhs and OP NO.1 & 2 received Rs.17,19,540/-. This OP submits that the loan was granted on the basis of document submitted by complainant. This OP on the basis of documents filed by complainant granted the loan and amount transferred to the OP No.1 and 2 after deducting the process fee and cost of the GPS device payment. GPS payment was reversed and credited in her loan account on 24/12/2019. This OP has no role in this dispute alleged by complaint. Hence prayed for the dismissal of complaint against OP3.
At the evidence time the complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exts A1 to A6, while OP No.1 filed the affidavit evidence of its sales man and got the documents marked as Ext.B1 to B7.
After that the learned counsels of complainant and OP NO.1 filed their respective argument notes and the learned counsel of OP1 also made oral argument.
Complainant alleged that though as per invoice, the price of vehicle Tata LPT 1918 SL Turbo Trown BS - IV Truck purchased by complainant was Rs.19,50,000/- on 17/08/2019, at the time of purchase OP No.1 told to the complainant that they are ready to sell the truck to complainant for the cost of Rs.12,00,000/-. Further alleged that the total vehicle loan financed by ICICI bank is Rs.17,19,540/- to the complainant and the said amount Rs.17,19,540/- is transferred by ICICI bank to OP No.1’s account. Complainant further alleged that though the total amount of Rs. 17,19,540/- was transferred in the account of OP NO.1 on 30/08/2019, the vehicle was delivered only on 19/09/2019. It is also alleged that OP1 given a cheque for Rs.2,99,695/- to complainants bank account for body work of the truck but the total amount spent by the complainant for body work of Rs.3,40,000/-. Complainant alleged that OP1 unnecessarily delayed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant even after received the entire amount of vehicle. The said act of OPNo.1 caused an addition payment of Rs.13,926/- towards temporary permit. Complainant also alleged that the balance amount due to the complainant by the OP is Rs.2,19,875/-. According to complainant though her husband demanded the said amount many time to OP NO.1, OP1 has not paid the amount.
On the other hand OP NO.1 contended that OP1 had received only Rs.16,94,367/- only from OP NO.3 ICICI bank for the complainant. Further OP1 never agreed to sell the vehicle to the complainant at the rate of Rs.12,00,000/- OP No.1 further contended that Rs.16,94,367/- has been transferred to the account of OP O.1 by the complainant on 30/08/2019 through OP3 bank and the vehicle was delivered to complainant on 20/09/2019 after 20 days of payment. Further stated that for 20 days delay OP No.2 gave a reduction of Rs.30,000/- from the total price of the vehicle. According OP NO.1 they have remitted the insurance amount Rs.52,772/- temporary registration charge Rs.2,500/- TCS 19500/- and at the delivery time of vehicle returned Rs.2,99,695/- to complainant through the cheque. OP No.1 stated that so there is no balance amount to be paid to the complainant as claimed. Further pleaded that after delivery of the vehicle, the complainant’s husband had given for body building and paid the amount for the same. According to OP, OP is having no connection with the body building company and having no liability to construct the body of the vehicle.
On perusal of the material evidence available before us, complainant has not furnished any document to show that OPs1 and 2 agreed to deliver the vehicle with a price of Rs.12,00,000/- and also no document to show that OP No.3 finance bank of complainant had sent Rs.17,19,540/- to the account of OP NO.1. Complainant submitted that Ext.A2 clearly show that on 30/08/2019, an amount of Rs. 17,19,540/- had been sent to OP No.1’s account. OP NO.1 strongly opposed the said submission of complainant. According to OP No.1 though loan was sanctioned by OP NO.3 for 17,19,540/- in the complainant’s account, she had sent only Rs.16,94,367/- to their account through OP3 bank. For proving the said contention OP1 produced Ext.B7 document delivery order of ICICI bank (OP3) dated 28/08/2019 to OP NO.1 as per the request.
Here the 1st question to be decided is, what was price of the vehicle agreed by OPs1 and 2 to sell the subject vehicle and what amount sent to the OP No.1’s account by the complainant as the price of the vehicle. Ext.A2 and ext.B5, and B7 are the documents pertaining to this point. Here complainant has not produced any documents to show that the customer and price was Rs.12,00,000/-. In other words Ext.B5 shows that the customer end price a sRs.13,20,000/-. Moreover OP NO.3 the ICICI Bank (OP3) also contended that the cost of the vehicle is not Rs.12 lakh. Hence from the aforesaid document and facts, we come to point that the customer end price of the vehicle in question as Rs.13,20,000/-. Further with regard to disbursement of loan amount of OP No.1’s account number, on analyzing Ext.A2 loan account statement of vehicle loan of the particular truck, reveals that loan amount sanctioned on 30/08/2019, for Rs.17,19,540/- to the complainant and disbursed to complainant’s account on the same day. In Ext is seen in Ext A4 advocate notice sent by complainant to OP NO.1 that complainant has transferred the entire amount financed by the ICICI bank (OP3) Rs.17,00,000/- to the account of OP NO.1 and also admitted that OP NO.1 had given a cheque of Rs.2,99,695/- to complainant for body work of the truck. In the complaint, complainant has alleged that Rs.17,19,540/- was transferred to the account of OP NO.1. In Ext.B3 and Ext.B6 final settlement sheet which bears signature of complainant’s husband clearly shows that payment amount was Rs.16,94,367/. Here we can see that complainant does not have a consistent version about the payment to OP NO.1. OP NO.3 contended that the loan sanction was Rs.17,19,540/- and amount transferred to the OPs 1 and 2 after deducting the process fee and cost of the GPS devise payment. Further the GPS payment was reversed and credited in the account of complainant on 24/12/2019. The bank has all the details to prove the above aspect. Here we can see that during cross-examination of Pw1, the learned counsel of OP No.1 put a question to produce her statement of account from the OPNo.3 bank during the relevant period. Though Pw1 agreed to produce the same, she has not produced it. On production of statement of account could reveal the actual picture of payment. Without such an evidence, we are constrained to accept the documents of OP No.1 Ext.B3 and B6. Hence OP No.1 has succeeded in proving their contention that the total disbursement amount as the prince of vehicle in the account of OP NO.1 was Rs.16,94,367/- only and OP1 had return Rs.2,99,595/- to complainant at the delivery time through cheque. Further complainant admitted during evidence theme that OP NO.1 had given insurance premium Rs.52,77,200/-. Ext.B6 reveals that OP1 had given TCS Rs.19,500/-. Temporary registration amount Rs.2,500/- has been given by OP No.1. Further there is no agreement to show that OP1 had agreed to pay the expense for body work. So OP No.1 is not liable to pay the body work charges of the vehicle.
On considering the whole evidence, it can be seen that complainant has failed to prove her case. Hence we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties1 to 3.
Hence complaint fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1-Quotation cum proforma invoice issued by OP to complainant
A2-Vehicle loan account statement issued by ICICI Bank to complainant
A3-Letter issued by Surty Va lorry body labour works Namakkal to complainant
A4-Copy of layer notice dated 02/12/2019
A5-Postal receipt
A6-Acknowledgement card.
B1-Customer satisfaction form
B2-Tax Invoice
B3-Customer account verification
B4-Delivery note
B5-Discount approval
B6-Customer final settlement sheet
B7-Delivery order
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
