IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of July, 2016
Filed on 11.11.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.329/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Santhosh Kumar.S. 1. Maruti Suzuki
Sreelakam Chilla Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
Pothappally Thekku Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road
Kumarapuram P.O. Vasant Kunju, New Delhi – 110 707
Haripad – 690 548
2. Hercules Automobiles INTL (P) Ltd.
Authorized Maruti Dealer
Door No. 10/1032 AC Road
Sanathanapuram P.O.
Kalarcode, Alappuzha – 688 003
(By Adv. C. Parameswaran)
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case succinctly is as follows:-
The complainant on 9th March, 2015 purchased a Maruti Eeco 5 Seater vehicle from the opposite party. The complainant initially paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- as advance and thereafter an amount of Rs.4,23,350/- was paid as cost. Subsequently the opposite parties handed back an amount of Rs.15,714/- to the complainant as the extended warranty and accessories were exempted from the list later. However, the opposite parties got hold of an amount Rs.6,550/- towards registration and handling charges from the complainant. The complainant impressed upon the complainant that no such charges were being in existence, and the opposite party is not entitled to impose such amount. The opposite parties were still hesitant to hand back the aforesaid excess amount, the opposite parties obtained from the complainant. The opposite parties’ service is deficient and the complainant sustained immeasurable mental agony and financial loss at the hands of the complainant. On being aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notices being sent, the opposite parties appeared before this Forum and filed separate version. The crux of the first opposite party’s contention is that the first opposite party is a mere manufacturer of the material vehicle. The first opposite party has nothing to do with the sale of the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party is answerable to the allegations as to the sale if any, the first opposite party contends. The 2nd opposite party contends that the complainant purchased that vehicle on being satisfied with the cost and other charges of the vehicle. The opposite parties had not obtained any amount unlawfully from the complainant. The complainant is disentitled to any relief from the complainant. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties contend.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1, and documents Exts.A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the complainant was cross-examined.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up for consideration are:-
- Whether the opposite parties procured charges unauthorisedly from the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We meticulously perused the complaint, version, testimonies and records placed on record by the parties. The complainant’s case is that the complainant purchased a Maruti Eeco 5 Seater vehicle from the opposite party. During the said purchase the opposite parties got hold of Rs.6,550/- towards registration and handling charges from the complainant. According to the complainant, the opposite parties obtained the said charges in excess of the required amount from the complainant. Keeping the said contentions in mind, we carefully went through the contentions put forth by the opposite parties. It appears that the first opposite party’s contentions mostly revolves round the technicalities. The 2nd opposite party contends that the complainant was satisfied with the cost and other charges the opposite parties imposed and the vehicle was purchased thereafter. On a plain perusal of the material available on record in its entirety it is crucial to notice that the opposite parties seemingly did not make any serious effort either to prove what has been put forth by the opposite parties or to disprove the complainant’s case. In this setting, the facts and materials being looked carefully into its entirely, we are of the strong view that the opposite parties have obtained excessive amount from the complainant. The complainant definitely is entitled to relief.
For the forging facts and findings emerged herein above, we hold that the complainant is entitled to get back an amount of Rs.6,550/- (Rupees six thousand five hundred and fifty only) the opposite parties charged towards registration and handling from the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,550/- to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation and costs to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2016.
Sd/- Sri.Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine. D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Santhosh Kumar.S. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the Proforma Invoice dated 2.3.2015
Ext.A2 - Copy of the DD for Rs.4,23,350/- dated 7/3/2015
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
