SRI. SAJEESH.K.P   : MEMBER

       The  Complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction  against  the OP  to remit Rs2,66,976/- and  compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

    The complainant in brief :-That the complainant had purchased a 2018 model Hyundai Verna EX.VTVTMT(Polar white) from OP by exchanging his car  viz Maruti Alto LXIBSIII 2009 model bearing No.KL 58B6732.  At the time of exchange the price fixed for  complainant’s car was for Rs.1.50,000/- and  price of Verna car was  Rs.8.12 lakhs.  The total amount of Verna car including other costs and charges, insurance charges and  road tax was Rs.9,39,048/-.  It was agreed between complainant and opposite party, Rs.1.50 lakhs will be deducted from total amount of verna car.  Moreover complainant availed vehicle loan with OP from SBI Kuthuparmba branch for  an amount of Rs.7,89,048/-.  The OP had represented the  time of delivery of car, that the cash bills for the purchase of Verna car will be directly forwarded to the  bank as the complainant availed loan.  But the bank informed complainant that, OP had shown Rs.9,25,791/- as the  ex-showroom price of vehicle and directed the complainant to refund Rs.1,11,976/- which is collected by OP as excess amount from complainant.  Moreover OP never deducted Rs.1,50 lakhs which was the price of Alto car of complainant.  The complainant suffered a loss of Rs.2,66,976/- due to the action of OP.  Hence this complaint.

       After filing the complaint, notice was issued, that notice  was deemed as duly served on the OP. The  OP has not  appeared before the commission and not filed any version.  Ultimately the  commission had to hold that OP has no version as such  in this  case and this  case  came to be proceed against the OP as set exparte.

   Even though, the OP has remained exparte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the OP.  Hence the complainant  was called upon to produce evidence in the form of  affidavit and documents.  Hence complainant adduced evidence in the form of proof affidavit and documents.  The documents produced by the complainant  are marked as Exts.A1 to A9 which was produced with  complaint.

  On the perusal of documents  produced by the complainant  Ext.A1  is copy of RC of Alto car which was possessed by complainant.  Ext.A2 is the copy of tax invoice of Verna car which was issued by  OP to SBI,Kuthuparmba branch.  Ext.A3 is the copy of insurance certificate of Verna car obtained by OP in the name of complainant.  Ext.A4  is copy of the letter issued by SBI Kuthuparmba to complainant stating the sanction of  car loan.  Ext.A5 is the copy of letter issued by SBI,Kuthuparmba in order to repay the excess amount of Rs.1,10,000/- collected by complainant.  Ext.A6 is the copy of letter issued by complainant to OP.  Ext.A7 is the dispatch receipt of courier service to the Hyundai Motors India , New Delhi.  Ext.A8 is the lawyer notice issued by complainant to OP.  Ext.A9 is the AD card.

   Let us have clear glance of documents produced by complainant it is seen that the averment of regarding  possession of Alto car is evident from Ext.A1.  Ext.A2 indicates the purchase of Verna car from OP.  As well as Ext.A3 being the insurance certificate shows  those facts stated in the complaint regarding  the purchase  and insurance amount is true.  According to Ext.A4, the loan sanctioned for car is Rs.8 lakhs and Ext.A5 shows the demand of Rs.1,10,000/- which was collected in excess by complainant.  From these  two documents and the  amount mentioned by  complainant in the complaint is not tallying  anywhere and no evidence to show the sale of Alto car with OP.  The complainant had  claimed  in the complaint that  he had need a loan of Rs.789048/-. But  the OP had forwarded cash bills directly to the bank and the bank informed that the price stated in cash bill was Rs.9,25,791/-.  Moreover, complainant has not produced any evidence to show the price of the car loan merely stated that  all dealings were done by OP.  It is the prime duty of a vendor to beware.  The complainant  has failed to produce evidence to substantiate his prayer as  claimed in  the complaint as well as  in proof affidavit.  There is no direct evidence to show that the OP has collected excess amount from                       complainant  apart from a mere statement  in the complaint.  Hence the commission came into the conclusion that complaint is liable to be dismissed  and no cost.

     Hence complaint dismissed, no order as to cost.

Exts:

A1- copy of RC of Alto car

A2-copy of tax invoice of Verna car

A3- copy of insurance certificate

A4 &A5- copy of the letter issued by SBI Kuthuparamba to complainant

A6-copy of letter issued by complainant to OP.

A7- dispatch receipt of courier service to the Hyundai Motors India , New Delhi.

A8- lawyer notice

A9- AD card.

Sd/                                                               Sd/                                                                      Sd/

PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER                                           MEMBER

Ravi Susha                             Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                              

                                                                          /Forwarded by Order/

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT