DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 31^st  day of October, 2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                                                                                             Date of Filing: 22/02/2020    

     CC/31/2020

Shehabudheen P.H.

S/o.Hussain P.A.(Late),

Hussain Manzil, Punnappadam,

Elavampadam Post,

Palakkad – 678 684                                                                -           Complainant

(Party in person)

                                                                                    Vs

1.         Indus Motor Company (P)Ltd.

            Accessories Division, Door No.VI 366 & 367,

            NH 47, Kootupatha Post,
            Palakkad – 678 007, Represented by its Managing Director

2.         Maruthi Suzuki Genuine Parts & Accessories,

            Maruti India Ltd.,

            No.1, Nelson Mandela Road,

            Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070                          -                       Opposite parties

            Represented by its Managing Director         

(O.P.1 by Adv.J.Kamesh

             O.P.2 set Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. Shorn to bare facts, grievance of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party had over charged him for the price of four alloy wheels purchased by him. Since the pleadings are somewhat confusing, we have to rely on both pleadings and evidence to arrive at a clear picture of the grievance of the complainant.

Complainant alleged that the opposite party had charged him Rs. 26,600/-(ie. Rs. 6650/- per tyre), while the sticker on the cover of the tyre showed cost of a single tyre to be Rs. 6299/-only. For this “unethical” business practice, the complainant  sought for Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.

2.         Opposite party 1 entered appearance and filed version repudiating the complaint pleadings. Pleading relevant to the grievance is in paragraph 7, wherein the opposite party states that the invoice for alloy tyres include the labour charges for changing the tyres.

3.         Opposite party 2 was set exparte.

4.         The following issues arise for consideration.

1. Whether the opposite party 1 had manipulated the price of the tyres?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
4. Reliefs, if any?

5.         Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked A1 to A8. O.P.s had not adduced any evidence. Complainant was examined as PW1.

                                    Ext. A8 is objected to on the ground that the same ought to be marked through the person who issued it. Yet considering the fact that the said document is irrelevant to consider the dispute in question, we need not dwell deep into the relevancy of admissibility of this document.

            Issue No. 1

6.         As already stated supra, crux of the case crystallizes to the question “whether the opposite party had charged the complainant more that what was shown as the MRP?”

7.         Inorder to ascertain the answer to this question, we have to rely on three relevant materials. They are

(a) Paragraph 7 of the version;

(b)Ext. A5 invoice; and

(c) Ext. A1 sticker.

(a)        Paragraph 7 (lines 5 to 7) of the version is to the effect that cost of the alloy includes labour charges as well. The labour charge is fixed at Rs. 1400/-.

(b)        Ext. A1 is a sticker for a wheel with code “43210 M 72R50 –QJ8”. MRP for  1 quantity (one tyre) is shown as Rs. 6299/-. This price is inclusive of all taxes.

(c)        Ext. A5 is a tax invoice issued by the opposite party. Here the 1^st item is wheel with item code no. “43210 M 72R50 – QJ8” and quantity is 4 (4 tyres).   Total price, inclusive of tax, is shown as Rs. 26,600.80/-. Rate of one tyre is 5155.20/-. Rate for four tyres come to Rs. 20620.80/-. This entire value is seen to be taxable. Tax amount is Rs. 5980.03/-. Therefore price of one tyre would be 6,650.20/-.

Declaration at the bottom of the Ext. A5 invoice is to the effect that the invoice reflects the actual price of the goods declared. If the entire price is shown in tax invoice, then we do not find merit in the argument of the opposite party that labour charges are included therein.

8.         On a perusal of Exts. A1 and A5 it is clear that the opposite parties had charged         Rs. 351/-per tyre (Rs.6650 – Rs. 6299) over and above the MRP shown in  Ext. A1.

9.         Even the testimony of the complainant (PW1) can be given a go-bye in view of the contents of the aforesaid statements and contents of the above 2 documents.

            Issue No. 2

10.       In view of the findings supra, we hold that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party 1.

            Issue Nos. 3 & 4

11.       Apropos the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the complainant is to be compensated aptly. We also feel that the opposite parties had been carrying out this unfair trade practice for long periods for which they have to be adequately penalized. Hence we order as follows:

1.         The opposite party 1 is hereby ordered to cease and desist from continuing with the unfair trade practice of charging the customers price over and above MRP.

2.         The opposite party 1 is ordered to pay the complainant the difference  of      Rs.1404/-(Rupees One thousand four hundred and four only) being the charges levied over and above the MRP together with interest at the rate of 10% from 15/01/2020 till date of payment.

3.         The opposite party 1 is ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) to the opposite party.

4.         The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as cost of these proceeding to the complainant.

5.         As penalty for the unfair trade practice, the opposite party 1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the Legal Benefit Fund of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad.

6.         The opposite party 1 is directed to comply with the order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the 31^st   day of October, 2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

       Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                       Member        

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1  -   Original sticker pertaining to product with code 43210M72R50-QJ8

Ext.A2   -   Piece of paper showing a calculation

Ext.A3  –   Email communication dated 5/2/2020    

Ext.A4   –   Print out of Whatsapp    communication.

Ext.A5  –   Copy of tax invoice dated 15/1/2020

Ext.A6  –   Copy of notification bearing No.11/2017 dated 28/6/2017

Ext.A7  –  Copy of order booking with Sl.No.38489

Ext.A8 -   Original tax invoice dated 14/1/2022

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Nil

Court Exhibit:   Nil

Third party documents: 

Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 – Shehabudheen P.H.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:

Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.