IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 16th day of September, 2020
Filed on 05 .03. 2018
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma BA. LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.68/2018
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.Mathew.K.M 1. M/s Popular Motor Corporation.
Kaithathara VI/54(VII/211), NH.47
Kalavoor.P.O Punnapra.P.O, Paravoor
Alappuzha Alappuzha
(Party in person) (Adv . Somanatha Kurup )
2. Shainimol (Sales Girl).
Popular Motor Corporation
(Bajaj) Division, Alappuzha Paravoor, Punnapra.P.O
Alappuzha.
3. Sankar (Sales Man)
Popular Motor Corporation
(Bajaj) Division,Alappuzha
Paravoor, Punnapra.P.O
Alappuzha
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act. 1986.
Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
On 15/2/2018 complainant exchanged his vehicle to the opposite party and paid for Rs. 10,100/- for purchasing a new vehicle. Opposite party agreed to purchase the old vehicle for Rs. 9500/- and offered an amount of Rs. 3000/- as exchange offer. Accordingly complainant paid an amount of Rs.22,600/- to the opposite party. Opposite party agreed to sell the new vehicle for Rs. 66,750/- and issued a bill for Rs. 57,629/-. More over they collected an amount of Rs. 1992/- as insurance, Rs. 4610/- as Road tax and Rs. 3000/- as service charge. The total amount was Rs. 67,231/-.
Though complainant claimed only an amount of Rs. 44,631/- as loan, opposite party arranged loan for Rs.72,900/-. Hence complainant has to pay Rs. 50,300/- at the rate of Rs.2001/- EMI for 35 months. Opposite party had collected excess amount from the complainant by breach of trust. Hence the complaint is filed for realizing an amount of Rs. 5669/- which was collected in excess, Rs. 20000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5000/- as cost.
2. Opposite party No.1 and 3 filed version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is filed with false allegations and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Complainant purchased a Bajaj Discover 125CC motor cycle on 15/2/2018. He sold his old 2012 model TVS Star City motor cycle for Rs. 9,500/- to the 1st opposite party. He took an amount of Rs.50,300/- as loan from M/s Bajaj Finance and paid Rs. 10,500/- as cash. The showroom price of the motor cycle is Rs. 57,629/-. Rs.1992/- is the Insurance amount, Rs.4610/- is the Road tax, Registration fees is Rs.550/-, Permanent registration fees is Rs.1000/- and price of accessories is Rs. 1000/-. Thus the total amount is Rs. 66,781/-. Out of the same after deducting the loan amount of Rs. 50,300/-, Rs. 16,481/-, Rs. 1006/- as finance service charge, Rs.350/- as stamp charge and Rs.1,911/- as one month EMI which amounts to Rs. 19,748/- was due to the opposite party. Out of the same Rs.10,100/- as cash and Rs.9500/- being the value of the old vehicle was available with the opposite party. Rs. 148/- being the balance is due to the opposite party.
The allegation that complainant paid Rs.22,600/- to the opposite party is false. The contention that EMI amount is Rs.2,001/- is also not correct and the EMI is Rs. 1,911/-. The EMI was reduced from Rs.2,001/- to Rs.1,911/- since the exchange offer of Rs. 3,000/- was reduced. Complainant has not included the amount of registration fee, Permanent registration fee, finance service charge, stamp charge and advance EMI purposefully to mislead the court. Entire matter was explained to the complainant and without accepting the same he has filed this complaint only to defame the 1st opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and hence complaint may be dismissed with cost.
3. On the above pleadings following points arise for consideration:-
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of
Rs.5,669/- which was collected in excess as prayed by him?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for realizing an amount of
Rs. 20,000/- as compensation?
4. Reliefs and cost?
4. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the PW1 and Ext.A1 to A7 on the side of the complainant. Opposite parties have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.
5. Point No.1 to3:-
PW1, the complainant in this case has filed this complaint for realizing an amount of Rs. 5,669/- on an allegation that such amount was received in excess by the opposite party. Besides the amount he is also seeking an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost. The case advanced by PW1 is that on 15/2 2018 he purchased a Bajaj Discover 125CC bike from the opposite parties. As per Ext.A1 the bill amount was Rs. 57,629/-. Besides the bill
amount he had to pay an amount of Rs.1,992/- as insurance charge, Rs.4,610/- as Road tax, Rs.1,550/- as Registration fees(Temporary &Permanent) and Rs.1000/- for accessories. The total amount will come to Rs.66,781/-. He had sold his old vehicle to the company as per Ext.A3 agreement for Rs. 9,500/-. There was an exchange offer of Rs. 3000/- and he paid Rs.10,100/- as cash. A finance was arranged for Rs.50,300/-. Hence according to PW1 opposite parties had collected an amount of Rs.5,669/- in excess than which they are entitled and so he had filed this complaint for realizing the said amount along with compensation. According to PW1 besides the bill amount insurance premium and Road tax rupees three thousand was collected as service charge (total amount Rs. 67,231/-). However in the version opposite parties contented that the total amount will be Rs.66,781/- including insurance premium, road tax, registration fees and the amount of accessories. Though the opposite parties had filed a detailed version no evidence was adduced by them. On 3/2/2020 IA.25/20 was filed to reopen evidence and for adducing evidence. However on 11/9/2020 it was dismissed as not pressed.
As discussed earlier according to PW1 the total amount payable by him is Rs. 67,231/-. However in the version it is contented that the total amount is Rs. 66,781/-. Admittedly an amount of Rs. 50,300/- was availed by PW1 from the finance company. Though PW1 has got a case that excess amount was taken from the finance company by the opposite parties the finance company is not made a party. In the version it is contented that an amount of Rs.350/- was collected as stamp charge, Rs. 1,006/- finance charge and Rs. 1,911/- as first EMI. In the version it is contented that though the EMI was Rs.2,001/- after adjusting the exchange offer of Rs.3,000/- the EMI was reduced to Rs.1,911/- However as per Ext.A6 pass book it is seen that the EMI was Rs. 2,001/- and not Rs.1,911/- as contented by opposite parties. In Ext.A6 passbook Rs. 2,001/- is debited on 8/4/2018, 8/5/2018, 4/6/2018, 3/7/18, 3/8/2018, 3/9/2018 and 3/10/2018. So it can be seen that EMI was Rs.2,001/- and not Rs.1,911/- as contented by opposite parties. Admittedly PW1 paid an amount of Rs.10,100/- as cash and he is entitled for Rs.9,500/- being the value of old vehicle. Rs.3000/- exchange bonus is also to be added to his account and so the total amount will be Rs.22,600/- if Rs.50,300/- being the finance amount is reduced from Rs.66,781/- being the value of vehicle, the balance to be paid by the complainant will be Rs. 16,481/-. So it can be seen that an amount of Rs. 6,119/- was collected in excess from the complainant. However in the version it is contented that Rs 1,006/- is the finance charge and Rs.350/- is the stamp charge. Though document is not produced that amount is also be reduced. So the excess amount collected from PW1 will be Rs.4,763/-. As said earlier though it is contented in the version that Rs.3000/- being the exchange bonus was adjusted in the loan amount and EMI was reduced to Rs.1,911/- from Ext.A6 pass book it can be seen that EMI was Rs. 2,001/- and not Rs.1,911/-. In the circumstances it can be seen that Rs.4,763/- was collected in excess from PW1 which he is entitled for refund. In the circumstances complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.4,763/- from the opposite parties.
Complainant is claiming an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service. From the foregoing discussion it can be seen that there was deficiency in service and the opposite party had collected an amount of Rs. 4,763/- in excess from the complainant. So the complainant is entitled for compensation. However considering the entire circumstances we are fixing the amount as Rs.5,000/-. These points are found accordingly.
6. Point no.4:-
In the result complaint is allowed in part.
A) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.4,763/-
along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of complaint
5/3/2018 till realization from the opposite parties.
B) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.5,000/- as
compensation from the opposite parties.
C) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 2000/- as
cost from the opposite parties.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the copy of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him correct by me and pronounced in open commission on this the 16th day of September, 2020.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Mathew.K.M(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Tax Invoice dtd. 16/2/2018
Ext.A2 - Cash receipts dtd. 15/2/2018
Ext.A3 - Sales deed dtd. 15/2/2018
Ext.A4 - Insurance policy schedule
Ext.A5 - Tax Receipt
Ext.A6 - Pass book
Ext.A7 - Tax Invoice.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
