D.O.F. 13.10.2010
D.O.O. 21.04.2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member
Dated this the 21st day of April, 2012.
C.C.No.247/2010
K. Krishnan,
S/o. Kelu,
Radhanilayam,
Mayyanoor P.O., : Complainant
Vatakara Taluk,
Kozhikode Dist.
(Rep. by Adv. K.K. Anilraj)
1. KVR Dream Vehicle Pvt. Ltd
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Kizhunna (Post), Thottada,
Kannur Dist. 670 007
(Rep. by Adv. T.P. Sabu)
2. FIET India Automobile Limited, : Opposite Parties
Rep. by Managing Director,
Plot number P93, Ranjan Gaon,
Industrial Area, Ranjan Gaon,
Talukka Shirur, 212 210 (Pin),
Maharashtra State.
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 1,36,000 with interest 10% from the date of complaint till payment.
The complainant’s case is that as induced by the advertisement in Mathrubhumi daily dated 08.06.2009 and 18.08.2009 and the offers made by the officers of 1st opposite party booked a car by giving a D.D. for ` 9,15,972 dated 23.12.2009 drawn on S.B.I. of Kannur by raising `7,75,000 as loan from SBI. This amount includes road tax, insurance premium etc. The complainant is a ex-military and is a person entitled to get international no claim bonus and insurance policy amount of the car at 60% and need only to pay 40%. The sales executive offered the complainant that he would get delivery within 20 days along with an exchange bonus of ` 15,000, gift cheque ` 36,000 and free insurance on delivery. But against their offer they delivered the car only on 23.01.2010 against and without the promised offer. On enquiry the opposite party’s men told that the offers at the time of booking does not exist at the time of delivery. The 1st opposite party cheated the complainant by giving offers through advertisement and its sales executives. So the 1st opposite party has played unfair and restrictive trade practice by making offers and not giving promised offer. Eventhough 1st opposite party has collected ` 23,505 as insurance premium, they have paid only ` 15,421 towards insurance premium and has not returned the balance till date. The road tax ` 50,433 was collected illegally from the complainant in addition to the actual price by playing fraud. Moreover they have not provided any accessory eventhough they have collected ` 1500 as accessory charge. So the 1st opposite party has retained ` 75,438 for making profit illegally. The complainant has suffered the loss of 60% of the actual insurance amount as he was entitled to get international no claim bonus; since the opposite party has paid insurance premium of the car to the insurance company of their own choice. The complainant was forced to take delivery since he has paid the entire amount at the time of booking itself. As per the retail invoice issued to the complainant at the time of taking delivery and collected an amount ` 8,55,568, but 1st opposite party at the time of booking given invoice that the ex-show room price is ` 8,40,544. There was no hike of price of the car within the period of booking and delivery. So the complainant issued a lawyer notice on 01.03.2010, they have not issued any reply or not even contacted the complainant. Hence the complaint.
In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum 1st opposite party appeared and filed their version, and 2nd opposite party remains absent and hence they were called absent and set exparty.
The 1st opposite party contented that the advertisement and offers of the vehicle was for a particular period, which was based upon the communication received from the company for a specific period upon certain condition. It is incorrect to say that there was an offer of delivery of the vehicle within 20 days with exchange bonus of ` 15,000 and gift cheque of ` 36,000 with free insurance. The 1st opposite party admits that they issued a invoice on 22.12.2009 and in that it was specifically stated that the vehicle specification, price and statutory levels shall be applicable as on the date of delivery by the dealer irrespective of booking date of delay in delivery for any reason and it is also stated that vehicle delivery date indicated by dealer shall not be treated as firm commitment. The claim with respect to international no claim bonus; the document produced by the complainant was issued by Oman Insurance Service Bureau Insurance Company working at Oman and as per the opposite party’s knowledge he is not entitled to get for any such bonus. If the complainant is entitled to any such bonus, or discount, it has to be given by future general India Insurance Company Limited. It is incorrect to say that opposite party had compelled the complainant to book the car by an offer of earlier delivery with full amount. There is no promise to repay the amount collected towards insurance premium, road tax with existing offer. The 1st opposite party admits that they have delivered the vehicle on 23.01.2010. The vehicle booked by the complainant in the year 2009 and the invoice given to him is also in tune with the existing price of a vehicle manufactured in 2009 and the existing offer will also be the vehicle of 2009 model. At the time of taking delivery the complainant was insisted for a particular premium colour and 2010 model car. But the opposite party explained the change of price and offers for a 2010 model vehicle to the complainant and after convinced the same the complainant took the delivery and filed the complaint. Infact there was difference of ` 10,000 for 2010 model with 2009 model and the complainant agreed to pay `5,000 for the premium colour. The opposite party had given one year free insurance, fifty months warranty, and 3 years free road side assistance as an offer and getting those offer complainant had to pay ` 8,000 to the opposite party. So the complainant had to pay ` 9,16,222 to opposite party and he has paid ` 9,15,992 as advance. During 2009 December, the other prevailing was exchange bonus of ` 15,000 only. But during January 2010, it was free insurance, extended warranty and road side assistance. The complainant got a new model 2010 and premium colour for the same amount invested for 2009 model vehicle. So the allegations are made only for the purpose of the case. The amount which has been collected towards insurance premium is adjusted from the difference in price and other charges. The tax amount for the 2010 model was `51,154, where as tax for 2009 model vehicle is only `50,433 and `1,500 collected not towards accessories but towards temporary registration and other charges. Nothing has been restrained by opposite party as alleged in the complaint and no profit has been taken by opposite party. The opposite party has not done any act against law and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above rival pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed.
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A9 and B1 to B7.
The complainant contended that opposite parties have collected excess amount by way of accessory charge, insurance, road tax, ex-show room price etc than offered by them through paper advertisement and other media and retained with them and hence the complainant is entitled to get back the excess amount with `50,000 as compensation. In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1 and produced documents such as proforma invoice dated 22.12.09, Mathrubhumi dailies dated 10.12.2009, dated 29.01.2010, retail invoice dated 23.01.2010, lawyer notice dated 01.03.2010, postal ads and postal receipts and insurance certificate from future general India etc. In order to disprove the case opposite party also examined its sales head as DW1 and produced documents such as receipt dated 30.12.2009, price list with effect from 10.12.2009, vehicle details, ledger account retail invoice dated 23.01.2010, certificate dated 07.01.2011 from Tata Motors, and price list with effect from 01.01.2010. According to opposite party the complainant has filed the complaint by suppressing material facts. The complainant had took delivery of a 2010 model vehicle with Foxtrot Azure Colour and hence the price varies from that of 2009. Eventhough the complainant had received performa invoice dated 22.12.2009, the opposite party had received the amount from the complainant on 30.12.2009 and Ext.B1 substantiate this. The complainant deposed before the Forum that “Ct¸m-Ä Fsâ ssIh-i-¯n-ep-ff hml\w 2010 model BWv. 2010 hml\w Bh-i-y-anà F¶pw hml\w \nÀ_-Ôn¨v tFÂ]n-¨-Xm-sW¶pw ]cm-Xn-bn ]d-ªn-«n-Ã. Affidavitepw ]d-ªn-«n-Ã.” This substantiate the case of the opposite party that the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle of 2010 model. The Ext.B3 the vehicle details also shows that the vehicle of the complainant is of 2010 model with Foxtrot Azure colour. Complainant’s main case is that the opposite parties have failed to keep the offers and assurances and failed to deliver the car to the complainant on assured date. In Ext.A2 ie Mathrubhumi daily dated 10.12.2009, advertisement with respect to Fiat Linea is seen. This advertisement says that “Exchange your old car for a brand new Linea and get attractive benefits worth `23,000 road side assistance bonus/Free extended warranty/ Free road side assistance for 50 months. Hurry offer valid till stock last. Fiat Linea Administration guaranteed.” Another advertisement Ext.A3, Mathrubhumi daily dated 29.01.2010 is also produced by the complainant. This advertisement also says that “First year insurance/ extended warranty / Road side assistance for 50 months. Hurry offer valid till 31st January. Fiat Linea, Administration guaranteed. This offer is applicable only for Linea 2009 model, 8,000 to be paid to avail this offer on Linea 2010 model.” So from the advertisement it is clear that the offers as per the Ext.A2 and A3 advertisements are available to the vehicles of 2009 model and if the parties wanted to extend the offer for 2010 model, they have to pay `8,000 more. Admittedly the complainant had taken delivery of 2010 model vehicle. Moreover the complainant deposed before the Forum that “Ext.A4 {]Imcw 8,55,568 cq]-bmWv show room price. CXnsâ 60% tax Dm-Ipw. A³]¯n H¶m-bn-c¯n NnÃm\w cq]-bmWv tax hcn-I. hml-\-¯nsâ Ifdv Foster grey BWv. AXn\v 5000/þ cq] AS-bv¡m³ X¿m-dm-sW¶v ]dª showroom priceDw taxDw Iq«n-bm Xs¶ 9 e£-¯n\p tase hcpw ta ]dª 5000/þ cq]bpw Rm\-S-bv¡m _m²-y-Ø-\m-Wv. ]{X ]c-k-y-¯n offer In«-W-sa-¦n 8000/þ cq] AS-bv¡-W-sa¶v ]d-ªn-«p-v.” So from the above deposition itself shows that the complainant is liable to pay ` 9,19,722 to the opposite parties since he had taken delivery, the vehicle made up of 2010 with Foster Grey Colour. But the complainant has paid ` 9,15,972 to the opposite party. So it is seen that there was no mis appropriation of money on the part of opposite party from the complainant. It is true that the opposite party has given Ext.A1 invoice to the complainant on 22.12. 2009, but the complainant himself admits that it is for 2009 model vehicle. But later on circumstances, were changed and complainant took 2010 model vehicle. But complainant has no case that he was persuaded by opposite party to take delivery of 2010 model. From the above calculation it is seen that opposite party has not levied any amount towards insurance premium and hence it is seen that the vehicle insured for the first year is as per offer. Moreover it is evident that complainant had taken delivery on 23.01.10 within 23 days of payment of the amount. There is no question of exchange bonus arises, since the complainant has not case that he had exchanged his old vehicle. Above all the complainant has no case that the opposite party has not provided extended warranty and road side assistance for 50 months. So from the available evidence on records it is seen that there is no deficient service on the part of opposite party and on the other hand it is seen that opposite party has performed their part well. Yet another contention of complainant is that he is entitled to get No Claim Bonus (NCB) on insurance. Policy amount of the car ie 60% and he need to pay only 40% of insurance premium. But he has not produced any document to his effect before the Forum. Moreover he has received offer of free insurance and hence on that ground also, it is seen that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. So the complainant failed to substantiate his case and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.
In the result complaint dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
President Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Proforma invoice dated 22.12.2009..
A2. Paper – Mathrubhumi daily dated 10.12.2009.
A3. Paper – Mathrubhumi daily dated 29.01.2010.
A4. Retail invoice dated 23.01.2010.
A5. Lawyer notice dated 01.03.2010.
A6. Postal receipts (2 in number)
A7. Postal Ad.
A8. Postal Ad.
A9. Certificate of insurance cum policy schedule.
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1. Receipt dated 30.12.09.
B2. Pricelist w.e.f. 10.12.2009.
B3. Vehicle details.
B4. Ledged account from 01.04.09 to 31.03.10.
B5. Form No.8B, Retail Invoice.
B6. Letter dated 07.01.2011.
B7. Pricelist w.e.f. 01.01.2010
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
Witness examined for opposite party
DW1. Abeesh A.K.
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
