SMT.G. VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT.

            The complainant’s case is that the 2^nd opp.party is the authorized dealer of the 3^rd opp.party, that the first opp.party is the Branch dealer  of the 2^nd opp.party, that the complainant approached the first opp.party for the purchase of a Maruthi Alto LX car, that the sale officer  attached to the office of the first and 2^nd opp.parties, one  Satheeshkumar gave  an offer letter to the complainant by which the opp.parties have promised to sell the said car  at a discounted  price of Rs.2,73,025/- and accordingly the first opp.party received Rs.1,000/- as booking advance  on 20..9..2008 vide Receipt No.666, that the complainant was asked to remit the balance amount  on 15..10..08 and it was remitted  on the aforesaid  date as per the DD No15202 of State Bank of Travancore, that the first opp.party has promised  to refund the excess amount at the time of taking delivery of the car, but  to the surprise of the complainant ,  the first opp.party again demanded an additional amount of Rs.10,289/- from the complainant for the delivery of the vehicle,  though the complainant resisted the illegal demand, the first opp.party insisted on the payment of the amount for the   delivery of the vehicle and finally the complainant was forced to remit the amount for taking delivery of the car, that the free accessories offered by the opp.parties were also not given, that the 3^rd opp.party did not change the price of Maruthy Alto LX model between 8..9..2008 and 18..10..2008, that the first opp.party charged an excess amount Rs.13,823/- from the complainant in  total violation of their promise to sell the vehicle Rs.2,73,025/-, that the first opp.party induced  the complainant to purchase the vehicle by offering a discount and free accessories and subsequently backed out from their promise forcing the complainant to purchase the vehicle at a higher price and the complainant issued notice to the opp.parties narrating the above facts to get returned the above excess amount , but on receipt of the same they have not cared to sent any reply.   Hence this complaint praying damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, to get the excess amount of Rs.13,823/- refunded and Rs.1000/- towards costs.

                   The opp.parties entered appearance and 1^ST and 2^nd opp.parties filed a joint version admitting that the complainant had booked a Maruthi Alto Car with the first and 2^nd opp.parties  on 20..9..2008  by paying  an advance amount of Rs.1,000/- and contending that the staff of the 2^nd opp.party had told the complainant that there is no ready stock with them of the Alto car and the same can be delivered  depending upon the availability of the vehicle from the Maruthi, but  none of the officers of these opp.parties  had given any  offer to the complainant to deliver the Maruthi Alto LX car for a discount price of Rs.2,73,025, that the dealer can sell the vehicle only according to the  price fixed by the Maruthi, that the advance payment made by the complainant only after  agreeing with the terms of these opp.parties on the basis of the norms of  Maruthi, that the price is fixed by the Maruthi and the other charges are collected only  at the option of each customer and  every customer is  free to decline from any packages, that the amount collected at  the initial stage  from the complainant is only  the show room price as per the  Proforma Invoice  and beneath of  the same it was clearly mentioned that the  price quoted above is  current and subject to change without notice and the price prevailing at the time of invoicing shall  only  be applicable and so as per that clause  the   balance amount was collected, that these opp.parties had collected Rs.2,76,559/- from the complainant vide  receipt No.666 dated 20..9..2008 and Receipt No.8257 dated 22..10..2008 and the allegation that the  first and 2^nd opp.parties had collected Rs.10,289/- from the complainant  is not true or correct, that these opp.parties  never promised to sell the car in a discounted price or to give any accessories free of cost, but these opp.parties had given  accessories worth Rs.4700/- free of cost and paid Rs.3910/- being the 50% of the insurance premium payable to the said vehicle as per the scheme existing at the time of invoicing, that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency  of service on the part of these opp.parties, that the complainant is liable to pay the price prevailing at the time of delivery of the vehicle and so he is not entitled for any compensation or other reliefs as claimed by him in the complaint and the complaint is to be dismissed with  cost of these opp.parties.

3^rd opp.party filed a separate written statement contending that the   complaint is without any cause of action against the opp.party 3, that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of necessary party, since the complainant has no cause of action against this opp.party, that it is a transaction of sale of goods executed between the complainant and the 2^nd opp.party  and this opp.party not  offered  any free accessories  as alleged by the complainant, that this opp.party  sells vehicles to  dealers under the dealership agreement against  ‘C’ Form  as is required  under The Central Sales Tax Act, that this  opp.party  has no  involvement  in the transaction of sale of vehicle to the individual customer, that there was no cause of action for issuing notice to this opp.party, that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opp.party and prayed to dismiss the complaint with their cost

Points that would arise for consideration in this case are:

1.     Whether there is any deficiency in service?

2.     Whether any excess amount collected by  opp.parties 1 and 2 and if so, whether  the above excess amount is to be refunded to the complainant?

3.     Reliefs and costs?

For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Exts.  P1 to P5.

For the opp.parties DW.1 was examined .

POINTS 1 TO 3

Admittedly the complainant had booked a Maruthi Alto car with opp.parties 1 and 2 on 20..9..2008 by paying an advance amount  of Rs.1,000/- by virtue of Ext.P2 receipt No.666.  According to the complainant the sale officer one Satheeshkumar attached to the office of the opp.party 1  gave an offer letter to the complainant by which the opp.parties had promised to sell the said Alto  LX car at a discount price of Rs.273025/-.  But  he remitted Rs.275559/- on 15.10.2008 vide DDNo.115202 .  This is evidenced by Ext.P4.  According to the complainant he remitted the above amount as the first opp.party has promised to refund the excess amount at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle.   But at the time of taking delivery the first opp.party again demanded an additional amount of Rs.10289/- and the complainant was forced to remit that amount, the free accessories offered by the opp.parties were also not given .   So according to the complainant the first opp.party  charged an excess amount of Rs.13,823/- in total violation of their promise to sell  the vehicle  for Rs.273025/- and so there is deficiency in service and he is  entitled to get refund of that amount with damage and cost.  But according to opp.parties 1 and 2 there is no deficiency in service. They have collected Rs.2,76,559/- by virtue of Receipt No.666 dated 20.9.08 and receipt No.8257 dated 22..10..2008, refunded Rs.6673/- and that other allegation that they had  collected an excess of Rs.10289/- is denied.

In this case the complainant was examined as PW.1 He would swear in tune with the allegations in the complaint.  He has stated that he paid  a sum of Rs.1000/- by  virtue of Ext.P2 receipt and paid Rs.2,75,559/- by virtue of DD.No.115202 dated 15..10..2008 which is evidenced by Ext.P4 .

Order booking form  marked as Ext.P1.  Admittedly to Ext.P3 notice requesting to refund the amount, the opp.parties have not issued any reply.  But during the evidence stage they have a case that out of  the excess amount Rs.10289/- collected excluding the Registration charges Rs.6673/- refunded by them.   But there is no  documentary evidence to substantiate the same.  PW.1 also denied the same in box.   DW1, the territory head of Indus Motors Company Ltd. also has a  case that they have refunded Rs.6673/- excluding  the  registration charges from Rs.10289/-    It follows that they collected excess amount but not refunded and  there is deficiency in service and in the absence of any evidence to show that they have refunded Rs.6673/- it is  to be refunded.

In the result, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.6673/- refunded with damages to the tune of Rs.3,000/- and cost Rs.1000/-.  The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order, in default it will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum  from the date of order.

Dated this the  9^th day of January, 2012.

                                                                                   I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Mathusoodhanan Pillai

List of documents for the complainant

P1. -  Order booking form

P2. – Receipt

P3. -  Notice to opp.party

P3[a] – Postal receipt

P4. –Worksheet and statement.

List of witnesses for the opp.party

DW.1. – Adarsh