By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The grievances of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant had advanced Rs. 2000/- to the second opposite party for purchasing a car, New Alto 800- Alto LXI BS-VI on 29/09/2021 . Between 29/09/2021 and 18/10/2021, the complainant had paid Rs. 3,85,000/-(Rupees Three lakh and eighty five thousand only) to the second opposite party as the price of the car. It is stated in the complaint that in addition to the amount paid in cash, the complainant also sold his car No. KL/11/AJ-2374 to the second opposite party for Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand only) as exchange. According to the complainant, he paid altogether an amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- (Rupees Four lakh and thirty thousand only) to the opposite party as the price of the vehicle even before delivery of the vehicle. At the time making advance payment on 29/09/2021 the second opposite party offered reduction of the price on account of festival offer and exchange offer. But the second opposite party did not provide any reduction in the price of the car even though an amount is shown as reduction of price in the invoice. It is stated in the complaint that, he was cheated by the opposite party. According to the complainant, the opposite party shown the price of the vehicle as Rs. 4,70,059/- (Rupees Four lakh seventy thousand and fifty nine only) and made believe the complainant that the offer price of Rs. 62,100/- was deducted in total price of the vehicle , but no such deduction was done by the second opposite party. When the complainant questioned about the non deduction of offer price, then the opposite party replied that the offer price is stipulated within the states where holy is celebrated. It is contended by the complainant that the opposite party had collected Rs. 32,041/- excessively than the actual price of the vehicle. It is further alleged by the complainant that the second opposite party had done interior work of the vehicle excessively than the work proposed by the complainant and thereby caused a loss of Rs. 11,270/- to him. Moreover the second opposite party collected excess amount of Rs. 2000/- for the payment of insurance premium even though the complainant was inclined to do the same directly. According to the complainant, the second opposite party had collected Rs. 6030/- excessively for the warranty of the vehicle. The complainant averred that the opposite party had assured the delivery of vehicle within 4 days and on the basis of assurance, the complainant sold and handed over his old vehicle to the opposite party. But the failure on the part of the opposite party to deliver the new vehicle as promised caused financial loss of Rs. 20,000/- as the complainant was constrained to use hired vehicle for frequent conveyance of his diseased sister to the hospital. The opposite parties acted together for securing unlawful financial gain from the complainant. The complainant sent notices to the opposite parties on 12/11/2021 informing them about his sufferings caused due to the acts of the opposite parties. The first opposite party did not sent a reply, but the second opposite party replied with baseless and false contention. So the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances. The complainant prayed for direction to the opposite party to refund Rs. 51,341/- to the complainant as the exorbitant amount collected at the time of purchase of the vehicle. The complainant also prayed for a direction to the opposite parties, to reimburse Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as the expenses incurred for conveyance due to the non delivery new vehicle. The complainant also claimed Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite parties as expenditure for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship caused due to acts of the opposite parties.
2. The complaint was admitted in file and notice was issued to the opposite parties. The first opposite party received notice, but not appeared before Commission and proceeded the matter as exparte. The second opposite party received notice on 29/04/2022 but did not file version within statutory period. Later on 14/07/2022 the second opposite party filed version. But the Commission declined to accept the contention raised in version as it was filed beyond statutory period.
3. The complainant filed affidavit and produced documents. Those documents produced before the Commission are marked as Ext. A1 to A14. Ext. A1 document is the copy of possession letter issued by the second opposite party to the complainant showing that the possession of vehicle No. KL-11-AJ-2374 handed over to the opposite party by the complainant on 30/09/2021. Ext. A2 document is the copy of receipt dated 18/10/2021 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A3 document is the copy of counter sale tax invoice dated 11/10/2021 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant for the payment of Rs. 933/-. Ext. A4 document is the copy of invoice bill dated 11/10/2021 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 3,369/-. Ext. A5 document is the copy of counter sale tax invoice dated 11/10/2021 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 1,050/-. Ext. A6 document is the copy of counter sale tax invoice dated 11/10/2021 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 1,050/- (Ext. A5 and Ext. A6 documents are one and same and marked by the Commission). Ext. A7 document is the copy of Counter Sale Tax Invoice dated 11/10/2021 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 20,918/-. Ext. A8 document is the copy of receipt dated 29/09/2021 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant showing payment of Rs. 2000/-. Ext. A9 document is the copy of receipt dated 30/09/2021 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A10 document is the copy of receipt dated 06/10/2021 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 40,000/-. Ext. A11 document is the copy of receipt dated 07/10/2021 issued by the opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Ext. A12 document is the copy of receipt dated 08/10/2021 issued by the opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 1,90,000/-. Ext. A13 document is the copy of receipt dated 15/10/2021 issued by the opposite party to the complainant showing payment of Rs. 28,300/-. Ext. A14 document is the copy of Tax invoice dated 11/10/2021 issued by the opposite party to the complainant showing the price of the vehicle.
4. Heard the complainant. Perused documents and affidavits. The points considered by the Commission are:
- Whether the opposite parties are committed deficiency in service or unfair trade practice towards the complainant?
- If yes, then what will be the relief and cost ?
5. Points No.1 & 2:-
It is stated in the complaint that the complainant had purchased a car from the opposite parties by remitting a total of Rs. 4,30,000/-. According to the complainant he had paid Rs.3,85,000/- by way of cash transaction between the period of 29/09/2021 and 18/10/2021. In addition to that amount, he also sold his vehicle to the second opposite party for a consideration of Rs.45,000/- as exchange in order to facilitate the purchase of new car. The complainant produced receipts issued by the opposite party showing payments for the vehicle on different occasions and those receipts are marked as Ext.A8 to A13 documents. The copy of receipt dated 29/09/2021 for Rs. 2,000/- is marked as Ext.A8 document. The copy of receipt issued on 30/09/2021 for Rs.23,000/- is marked as Ext. A9 document. The copy of receipt issued on 06/10/2021 for Rs.40,000/- is marked as Ext A10 document. The copy of receipt issued on 07/10/2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- is marked Ext. A11 document. The copy of receipt issued on 08/10/2021 for Rs.1,90,000/- is marked as Ext.A12 document. The copy of receipt issued on 15/01/2021 for Rs.28,300/- is marked as Ext A13 document. The complainant also produced possession letter dated 30/09/2021 issued by the second opposite party is marked as Ext. A1 document. One of the grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties collected Rs.32,041/- excessively from him than the actual price of the car. When going through the evidence given by the complainant, it can be seen that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his contention of excess payment as the price of the car. The complainant stated that the opposite party had arranged insurance coverage for his car. Even though the complainant alleged arbitrary selection of insurance policy by the opposite party resulting financial loss of Rs.2000/- to the complainant, but no documentary evidence is adduced by the complainant to prove his case. Moreover, the complainant not disclosed the amount paid for tax of the vehicle. The complainant do not claimed that the insurance premium and vehicle tax were paid directly by himself.
6. Conversely, at the time of hearing, the opposite party has turned down bysaying that he had taken back his old vehicle from the opposite party and no sale was took place as stated in the complaint. In this situation, the Commission cannot consider Ext.A1 document in his favour in the adjudication of the case. Moreover there is no document available before the Commission that the vehicle owned by the complainant was transferred in favour of the second opposite party. The Commission finds that the complainant has failed to bring out the actual payment made for the purchase of vehicle from the opposite party. As per Ext.A8 to A13 documents, it can be seen that the payment effected by the complainant was only for the extend of Rs. 3,83,300/- for purchasing the car. The Commission also noticed the allegation of non- reduction of the price of the car as offered by the opposite parties. It is stated by the complainant that the opposite party had given an offer of discount of price to the tune of Rs. 62,100/- in connection with holy festival. The complainant has produced copy of tax invoice dated 11/10/2021 issued by the second opposite party showing the price of the vehicle purchased by the complainant and the tax invoice is marked as Ex.A14 document. But Ext.A14 document clearly shows that a discount of Rs. 62,100/- was given to the complainant and the price paid for the car is also shown as Rs.3,24,400/-. So when considering Ext.A14 document, it can be seen that the opposite party had provided a discount of Rs.62,100/- to the complainant from the original price of Rs. 3,86,500/-. So the Commission discard the allegation of non-availability of offered price. The evidence came out through Ext.A8 to Ext.A13 documents clearly spells out that the complainant had only remitted a total of Rs. 3,83,330/- for purchasing the vehicle and including payment made for insurance premium and tax of the vehicle. As revealed above, the complaint did not explicitly spoken about amount paid for tax and insurance premium of the vehicle, so the Commission finds that the allegation of excess amount of Rs.32,041/- collected as price of the vehicle cannot be believed and allegation lacked evidence.
7. Another allegation raised by the complainant against the second opposite party was that the interior work done by the opposite party was not in accordance with directions given by the complainant. It is contended that due to excess work, the complainant had incurred a loss of Rs.11,700/-. The complainant has produced copy of receipts showing the expenses incurred for interior work of the vehicle and those receipts are marked as Ext.A2 to A7 documents. The copy of receipt dated 18/10/2021 is marked as Ext A2 document. The copy of counter sale tax invoice dated 11/10/2021 for Rs. 933/- is marked as Ext. A3 document. The copy of invoice bill dated 11/10/2021 for Rs. 3,369/- is marked as Ext. A4 document. The copy of counter sale tax invoice dated 11/10/2021 for Rs.1050/- is marked as Ext. A5 documents. The copy of counter sale tax invoice dated 11/10/2021 is marked as Ext.A6 document (Ext.A5 and Ext.A6 documents are one and same documents). The copy of counter sale tax invoice dated 11/10/2021 for Rs. 20,918/- is marked as Ext.A7 document. But the Commission cannot find any excess work as allegedly done by the opposite party from Ext. A2 to Ext. A7 documents. Moreover there is no evidence available before the Commission to show that the complainant had made attempt to remove alleged excess interior installation from his vehicle.
8. The complainant is also claimed Rs. 20,000/- as reimbursement of expenses incurred for hiring vehicle due to non- delivery of new vehicle as promised by the opposite parties. According to the complainant, the opposite party had promised delivery of vehicle within 4 days from the date of booking. But there is no evidence to show that a promise was given by the opposite party as alleged. Moreover it can be seen that the complainant did not pay the entire price of the car within those 4 days. Any kind of short delay cannot be taken as a serious negligence on the part of the opposite party, particularly in a situation where no agreement is shown as existed to perform the reciprocity by the parties.
9. So in the above circumstances, after evaluating entire evidence, even though in the absence of contra evidence, the Commission finds that the complainant has failed to establish his case as contended in the complaint. The Commission finds no merits in the complaint hence it is dismissed.
Dated this day 30th of May, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A14
Ext. A1 : Document is the copy of possession letter issued by the second opposite
party to the complainant showing the sale of vehicle No. KL-11-AJ-2374
owned by the complainant to the second opposite party made on
30/9/2021.
Ext. A2: Document is the copy of receipt dated 18/10/2021 issued by the second
opposite party to the complainant .
Ext. A3 : Document is the copy of counter sale tad invoice dated 11/10/2021 issued
by the second opposite party to the complainant for the payment of Rs.
933/-.
Ext. A4 : Document is the copy of invoice bill dated 11/10/2021 issued by the second
opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 3,369/-.
Ext. A5 : Document is the copy of counter sale tax invoice dated 11/10/2021 issued
by the second opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of
Rs. 1,050/- .
Ext. A6 : Document is the copy of counter sale tax invoice dated 11/10/2021 issued
by the second opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of
Rs. 1050/- .
Ext. A7 : Document is the copy of Counter Sale Tax Invoice dated 11/10/2021
issued by the second opposite party to the complainant showing the
payment of Rs. 20,918/-.
Ext. A8 : Document is the copy of receipt dated 29/09/2021 issued by the second
opposite party to the complainant showing payment of Rs. 2000/-.
Ext. A9 : Document is the copy receipt dated 30/09/2021 issued by the second
opposite party to the complainant .
Ext. A10: Document is the copy of receipt dated 06/10/2021 issued by the second
opposite party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 40,000/-.
Ext. A11: Document is the copy of receipt dated 07/10/2021 issued by the opposite
party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Ext. A12: Document is the copy of receipt dated 08/10/2021 issued by the opposite
party to the complainant showing the payment of Rs.1,90,000/-.
Ext. A13: Document is the copy of receipt dated 15/10/2021 issued by the opposite
party to the complainant showing payment of Rs. 28,300/-.
Ext. A14 : Document is the copy of Tax invoice dated 11/10/2021 issued by the
opposite party to the complainant showing the price of the vehicle.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
