The complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows:  Complainant booked a ‘Force Tremp 40’ vehicle on 12.07.2010 by paying a token advance of Rs. 1,001 to the opposite party.  At that time, the offer of the opposite party was that the approximate price of the vehicle is ` 3,63,000.  They issued a customer order form for the said amount.  They assured that the vehicle will be delivered within one month from the date of booking and the price will have to be paid only at the time of delivery.  Complainant approached the opposite party on 13.08.2010 for getting the vehicle.  But they informed that the vehile is not available and told that during the Onam Season there will be reduction in price and the vehicle will be delivered if 50% of the price is given.  As per the assurance, complainant, on 13.08.2010, paid ` 34,000 by cash and issued a cheque for ` 10,000 and they accepted a total amount of Rs. 44,000.  After that on 22.08.2010 they accepted an amount of ` 55,000 in cash and ` 2,63,000 from Mahendra Finance.  Thus the total amount received by the opposite party is ` 3,63,000

                   3. There was a special offer in Onam Season and opposite party offered one-year insurance, full tank diesel and yellow paint etc.  During the Onam Season, complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 22.08.2010.  At that time, they had given an invoice dated 20.08.2010, permit, full tank diesel price of ` 1,700 and yellow paint.  The delivery date of the vehicle was on Sunday.  In the absence of General Manager, the authorised representative assured that they would settle the balance amount as per invoice. 

                   4. As per the invoice issued by opposite party the transporting authority registered the vehicle.  Though the price of the vehicle as per invoice is ` 3,16,820, opposite party’s collected ` 3,63,000 from the complainant illegally.  Complainant demanded several times to refund the excess amount of `46,172.  But opposite party has not done it.  On 13.9.2010 an advocate notice was issued to opposite party.  But opposite party has given a reply notice with untenable contentions.  Hence this complaint for the realization of the excess amount collected by the opposite party’s with 18% interest, compensation and cost of ` 10,000 and ` 2,000 respectively.

                   5. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Opposite party admitted that complainant approached them for purchasing Trump-40 vehicle of Force Motors on 12.7.2010.  At that time, they informed the complainant that the approximate price of the vehicle will be ` 3,63,000.  There was no agreement or assurance either oral or otherwise that the vehicle would be delivered within a month from the date of booking.  They also informed that the delivery of the vehicle will be subject to the availability of the vehicle.  Opposite party neither informed the reduction of price during onam season nor demanded to remit 50% of the value of the vehicle to get the vehicle during the onam season.  When complainant’s enquired about the delivery of vehicle on 13.8.2010, opposite party assured him that the vehicle will be available by the end of August 2010.  On that day, the complainant has remitted ` 34,000 in cash and ` 10,000 as cheque.  Opposite party also arranged vehicle finance loan from Mahindra Finance.  Opposite party received delivery order from the said finance company.

                   6. According to opposite party, complainant informed that as per the directions of his Astrologer 22.08.2010 is the best day to take delivery of the vehicle.  Though 22.08.2010 was a holiday, opposite party has agreed to deliver the vehicle on 22.08.2010.  Opposite party has obtained temporary permit for the vehicle on 20^th August 2010.  On 22.08.2010, the complainant came and took delivery of the vehicle.  At that time complainant has insisted for an invoice.  One of the staff, who is an incompetent and inexperienced, has prepared the invoice in a hurry and issued to the complainant erroneously wherein the price of the vehicle is shown as ` 3,16,829.  When this mistake has come to the notice of the opposite party, they have corrected it and requested the complainant to return the erroneous invoices and to collect the correct one.  Complainant has not remitted an amount of ` 55,000 on 22.8.2010.  On 27.8.2010, the opposite party received Demand Draft for ` 2,63,000 from the Finance Company and on 28.08.2010, the complainant has remitted the balance amount of ` 55,000.

                   7. The opposite party has received an amount of ` 1,001 on 12.7.10, ` 34,000 on 13.8.10, ` 10,000 on 13.8.10,   ` 2,63,000 as Demand Draft on 27.8.10 and ` 55,000 on 28.8.10.  The total amount received by opposite party is ` 3,63,000.  Opposite party admitted that they paid ` 13,000 as one year insurance premium for the vehicle, an amount of ` 1,700 being the amount in lieu of full tank diesel out of their fund and the yellow boards were also provided.

                   8. The price of the vehicle has not reduced during onam season.  The registration for temporary permit of the vehicle was done online by the opposite party on 20.8.10 itself.  This complaint is filed with malafide intention of making unlawful and undue gains from the opposite party fully knowing that the price of the vehicle is ` 3,63,000.  The allegation that the registration of the vehicle was done showing ` 3,16,829 as the price of the vehicle is not correct.  This is evident from the online registration made by the opposite party on 20.8.10.  The opposite party has received an excess amount of ` 46,172 from complainant is only an imaginary allegation made without any bonafides.  Opposite party has denied it in their reply notice itself.  Complainant has not stated anywhere in the complaint as to how he arrived at the amount of ` 46,172.  Opposite party paid insurance premium of ` 13,000, paid ` 1,700 an amount in lieu of full tank diesel and yellow boards.  Deducting the above said amounts, the opposite party has issued invoice for `3,48,300.  The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party.  There is neither any deficiency of service nor unfair trade practice against the opposite party.  Therefore, opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

                   9. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:

(1)   Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2)   Whether the relief sought for in the complaint are allowable?

(3)   Reliefs & Costs?

           10. Evidence of the complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 toA6 and B1 to B5.  After closure of evidence both sides were heard.

          11. Point Nos.1 to 3:-  In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6.  Ext.A1 is the Customer Order Form dated 12.7.10 issued by opposite party.  Ext.A2 is the receipt of ` 1001 dated 12.7.10 issued by opposite party.  Ext.A2(a) is the receipt of ` 34,000 dated 13.8.10 issued by opposite party.  Ext.A2(b) is the receipt of ` 10,000 dated 13.8.10 issued by opposite party.  Ext.A2(c) is the receipt of ` 2,63,000 dated 27.8.10 issued by opposite party.  Ext.A2(d) is the receipt of ` 55,000 dated 28.8.10 issued by opposite party.  Ext.A3 is the copy of retail invoice of ` 3,16,829 dated 20.8.10 issued by opposite party.  Ext.A4 is the copy of advocate notice dated 13.9.10 issued to opposite party.  Ext.A5 is the postal receipt of Ext.A4.  Ext.A6 is the copy of Sale Certificate dated 20.8.10 issued by opposite party.

          12. In order to prove the opposite party’s contention, General Manager of opposite party filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to B5.  Ext.B1 is the copy of the online registration of the vehicle dated 20.8.10.  Ext.B2 is the copy of registered letter dated 31.8.10 issued to complainant.  Ext.B3 is the original of the advocate notice dated 13.9.10 issued by complainant’s advocate to opposite party.  Ext.B4 is the reply notice of Ext.B3.  Ext.B5 is the postal receipt of Ext.B3.

          13. On the basis of the contention and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record.  Complainant’s case is that opposite party illegally collected ` 3,63,000 as price for Trump 40 vehicle, though the actual price is ` 3,16,820.  Opposite party’s contention is that their inexperienced staff erroneously issued an invoice in which the price of the vehicle is given as ` 3,16,000 instead of ` 3,48,300.  When the mistake has come to the notice, they prepared the correct invoice and requested the complainant to return the said invoice and collect the correct one.  But complainant has not turned up so far. 

          14. On a perusal of Ext.A1 to A2(d), it is learned that opposite party had collected ` 3,63,000 as the price of the vehicle.  Ext.A3 shows that the gross value of the vehicle is ` 3,16,829.    Ext.B1 is the online temporary registration of the vehicle from Motor Vehicle Department of Kerala.  Ext.B2 is the copy of letter issued to complainant.  Ext.B3 is the original notice of the complainant.  Ext.B4 is the reply notice of Ext.B3. 

          15. It is pertinent to note that Ext.A3 retail invoice is issued as per Rule 58(10) of Kerala value added Tax rules 2005, in which unit price is `2,81,313.21 + 12.5% tax of ` 35,164.15 + Cess 1% of ` 351.64.  Thus the total amount is ` 3,16,829.  The validity of Ext.A3 is not denied by DW1 in his deposition which is as follows:  “Ext.A3 ---þse date 20.8.10 BWv.  unit tax-Dw aäpw fixed BWv.  AXv Iw]yq«dn skäv sNbvXn«pÅXmWv.  lÀPn¡mc³ \ÂInb hml\¯nsâ unit price ` 2,81,313.91 BsW¶p ]dbp¶p? tcJIÄ ]cntim[n¡msX ]dbm³ ]änà “ (Ans).  Moreover in the last part of Ext.A3(a), the declaration duly signed by the authorised person of the opposite party is also seen.  Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the genuineness of Ext.A3, even though opposite party alleged that it is erroneous and prepared by an incompetent and inexperienced person.

          16. According to opposite party, they prepared another invoice instead of Ext.A3, but complainant has not taken it.  They claim that they send Ext.B2 intimation to complainant.  But postal receipt or acknowledgment card are not produced to prove the same.  If they have prepared a new invoice, what prevented them to produce the same before the Forum and why they have not produced evidence to show that the same has been given to the complainant?

          17. It is also noted that opposite party failed to produce any documents showing the actual price of the vehicle.  The production of an invoice with a particular price before the registering authority is since queue none.  Ext.B1 is the temporary registration certificate of the vehicle in which the price of the vehicle is noted as ` 3,48,300.  According to complainant, he registered the vehicle on the basis of Ext.A3.  Opposite party has not produced the basic records relied by them for showing the price as ` 3,48,300 in Ext.B1.  It is evident that the date of Ext.B1 is 20.8.10.  The date in Ext.A3 is also on 20.8.10.  Moreover, they are bound to answer why they have not produced the pricelist of the vehicle from the company to substantiate their contention regarding the actual price.  All this shows that there is no transparency in their dealings.

          18. From the facts and circumstances and the available evidence on record, it is crystal clear that opposite party illegally collected ` 3,63,000 as price of the vehicle even though the actual price of the vehicle as per Ext.A3 is ` 3,16,820 thereby they obtained unlawful gain of  ` 46,172. It is unjust, malafide, unscrupulous and against the spirit of consumer justice.  It is squarely an unfair trade practice.  Therefore, we find that this complaint is maintainable and allowable with compensation and cost.

          19. In the result, complaint is allowed thereby the complainant is allowed to realise the excess amount of ` 46,172 (Rupees Forty Six Thousand One hundred and seventy two only) with 10% interest from the date of filing of this complaint along with compensation of ` 3,000 (Three Thousand only) and cost of ` 1,500 (Rupees One Thousand and Five hundred only).  The opposite party is also directed u/s.14(1)f to discontinue such type of unfair trade practice.  The amount so awarded is to be given to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will follow interest at the rate of 10% from this date, till the realisation of the whole amount.

          Declared in the Open Forum on this the 22^nd day of August, 2011.

                                                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                                                      N. Premkumar,

                                                                                            (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                 :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :  Asokan. K.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Customer Order Form dated 12.7.10 issued by opposite party to the 

              complainant. 

A2     :  Receipt dated 12.7.10 for ` 1001 issued by opposite party to the 

             complainant. 

A2(a):  Receipt dated 13.8.10 for ` 34,000 issued by opposite party to the 

             complainant. 

A2(b):  Receipt dated 13.8.10 for ` 10,000 issued by opposite party to the

             complainant. 

A2(c) :  Receipt dated 27.8.10  for Rs.2,63,000 issued by opposite party to the 

              complainant. 

A2(d):  Receipt dated 28.8.10  for ` 55,000 issued by opposite party to the 

             complainant. 

A3     :  Photocopy of retail invoice dated 20.8.10 for  ` 3,16,829 issued by 

              opposite party to the complainant. 

A4     :  Copy of advocate notice dated 13.9.10 sent by the complainant to 

             opposite party. 

A5     :  Postal receipt of Ext.A4. 

A6     :  Photocopy of Sale Certificate dated 20.8.10 issued by opposite party to 

             the complainant. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:

DW1 :  Chandrasekharan Nair.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

B1     : Photocopy of the online registration of the vehicle dated 20.8.10. 

B2     :  Photocopy of registered letter dated 31.8.10 issued by the opposite 

             party to complainant. 

B3     :  Advocate notice dated 13.9.10 issued by complainant’s advocate to 

              opposite party. 

B4     :  Reply notice of Ext.B3.

B5     :  Postal receipt of Ext.B3.

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                         Senior Superintendent

Copy to:- (1) K. Asokan, Cherumuttathuparampil House, Podiyadi P.O., 

                       Thiruvalla Taluk.

        (2) General Manager, M/s. National Motors, Kottackal Buildings, 

                        Near College Junction, Pathanamthitta.

                  (3) The Stock File.