FA   880/2008 against C. C. No. 80/2008  on the file of the

District Forum III, Hyderabad

Between :

S. Balaram,

Plot  no. 47, Vigyanapuri,

Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 72.                               .. Appellant/complainant

And

1.                  M/s. The Mithra Agencies

( Authorized Maruthi Dealers )

3-6-478, Anand Estate

Hymayatnagar,

Hyderabad – 500 029.

2.                  Mr. Ramalingam,

3-6-478, Anand Estate

Hymayatnagar,

Hyderabad – 500 029.

3.                  M/s. Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd

Mahavir Chambers

D.no.3-6-363 & 3-6-1/1

Chamber bearing No. 101 and 102

1^st floor, Liberty Square Stanza

Hymayatnagar

Hyderabad                     .. Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant            :           M/s. V. Gourisanakra Rao

Counsel for the Respondents    :           M/s.N. Vinesh Raj for R1  & R2.

                                                                        Served for R3.

Coram           ;           Sri Syed Abdullah              …        Hon’ble Member

And

Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao…      Hon’ble Member

Thursday, the Twenty Nineth Day of July,   Two Thousand Ten

Oral Order     :           ( As per Sri Syed Abdullah,  Hon’ble Member )

*******

The unsuccessful complainant in CC 80/2008 filed this appeal questioning the legality and propriety  of the order  in dismissing the complaint claiming refund of excess amount of Rs.43,870/- said to have been collected by the respondent at the time of sale of Maruthi Car.

The facts of the case are that  he purchased Maruti 800 AC car  from the opposite parties 1 and 2  after availing loan advanced by ICICI Bank, Hyderabad on 24.04.2007.  According to the complainant, there was a discrepancy with regard to the amount mentioned in the invoice  issued by the first opposite party. The value of the car in question was Rs.2,15,043/- out of which Rs.25,000/- was given as discount.   On collection of  the total amount including life tax would comes to Rs.1,86,832/- but not Rs.2,15,043/- as worked out by the opposite parties 1 and 2.   Apart from it, the opposite parties have collected insurance premium  on a sum of rs.2,15,043/-  but not on the actual price of the car.  Thus, an excess amount of Rs.40,870/-  was collected by the opposite parties 1 and 2, as such, the complainant is entitled for refund of it.

The opposite parties 1 to 3 had denied the allegations made by the complainant.  The actual selling price of Maruthi 800 AC car is fixed by the manufacturer for Rs.2,15,043/-.  As per the bargain between the purchaser ad the seller a sum of Rs.25,000/-  was given as discount  including Rs.10,000/- offer made by the 3^rd opposite party under the scheme.  The Ex-show room price is Rs.2,15,043/- including sales tax.   The opposite parties 1 and 2  have discounted the discount given to the complainant first  and calculated the tax on the discounted amount by subtracting the tax from the original price and collected the sales tax on the actual cost of the car.   The complainant  has to pay life tax on the actual price of Rs. 2,15,043/-   fixed by the OP.3.  Sales tax would go to the account of Government through e-Seva.  The insurance amount was also collected on the price fixed by the manufacturer i.e. Ex-show room price.  The Ops 1 and 2 nothing to do with the collection of life tax payable to the RTA and Insurance company.  The amount charged towards registration of the vehicle which is the optional service extended by the opposite party to its customer as Value Added Service and the complainant has  opted for the said services voluntarily and availed services.  So he cannot complain about the payment of amount  to the said services once he availed the same  at his option voluntarily.   No excess amount was collected other than the  actual price.

During enquiry, along with evidence affidavit the complainant filed Ex. A-1 to A-8 , so also, the opposite parties filed Ex. B-1 to B-3 along with the evidence affidaivat.

After going through the evidence on record,  the District Forum concluded that  the complainant failed to prove that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have charged  any excess amount as alleged so as to attribute with deficiency in service and thereby dismissed the complaint.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint,  the appellant has taken the stand that Ex. A-4 invoice in which  the price of the car  is mentioned as Rs.1,91,149.30 ps  out of which a sum of Rs.25,076/-  was deducted  as discount and the amount is mentioned  as Rs.1,66,073.30 ps after adding VAT of Rs.20,759.16, the invoice amount  was mentioned as Rs.1,86,832/-. But the District Forum failed to see that the complainant  had paid a sum of Rs.30,000/-  on 26.04.2007 and that ICICI Bank had released loan of Rs.2,10,000/-  in total paid Rs.2,40,000/-.  It is also contended that  the District Forum failed to see that the dealer has refunded only Rs.3,247/-  to the complainant  by collecting Rs.2,36,753/-  from him.   Apart from it, the District Forum failed to see that the dealer has paid Rs.19,475/- towards life tax showing the vehicle cost at             Rs. 2,15,043/-  in stead on Rs.1,86,832/- . So also, the insurance premium paid was Rs.6,931/- on a sum of Rs.2,15,043/-.  Had the  opposite party paid life tax and insurance premium on the invoice price of Rs.1,86,832/-, the complainant would have  saved Rs.2,545/-  towards life tax  and Rs.796/- towards insurance premium.  It is contended  that the dealer has collected Rs.2,36,753/-  as against Rs.Rs.2,15,233/- plus life tax of Rs.19,475/-  and premium of Rs.6,931/- plus extended warranty of Rs.1,195/-. 

Point for consideration is,  whether the appellant/complainant  has proved that the opposite parties 1 and 2  have collected any excess amount as alleged  and entitle  to the relief sought for by setting aside the order under appeal ?

Ex. A-8 is the bank statement issued by  ICICI Bank  which shows that a sum of Rs.2,15,043/- was advanced as finance for purchasing the car.  Ex. B-4 is the delivery order  given by the dealer which shows that Asset cost as per the proforma invoice is Rs.2,15,043/-. Margin money amount per unit is Rs.5,043/-.  The total amount financed by the Bank is Rs.2,10,000/-.  The total disbursement amount is Rs.2,02,937.  It is clearly stated  in Ex. B-4 that the Asset cost  proforma invoice is Rs.2,15,043/-.  Ex. B3 Ledger account maintained by the opposite parties 1 and 2  shows that a sum of Rs.6,931/- was paid on 25.04.2007 and the vehicle cost is Rs.1,86,832/- with discount which was accounted for.  The details of life tax, handling charges extended warranty service charges, car accessories charges,  financial service charges are shown in detail which comes to Rs.2,36,962/-. Ex-show room price of Maruthi 800 MPI BS III C as per the Ex. B-1  is Rs.2,15,042.97.   The contention of the complainant is that  life tax and premium ought to have been paid on the invoice amount of Rs.1,86,832/- but not on the ex-show room cost.  The cost as mentioned in the invoice is only discount price.  Generally, the discount is given by the dealers to boost sales and promote business by deducting the discount from the ex-show room  cost. If life tax is not collected on the actual cost   there will be a loss to the Government.  Similarly, in the payment of insurance premium other than the declared value of Rs.2,15,043/-.  Merely because invoice Bill ( Ex. A4)  shows that Rs.1,86,832/- was collected  after giving deduction,  the actual cost for insuring the vehicle cannot be reduced.  Ex. B-3, Ledger Account, filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 is crystal clear that the total cost is Rs.2,36,962.00 which is inclusive of life tax insurance and other charges.  For other accessories also, some  amount was collected.  The complainant failed to include the amount or charges collected for accessories and  financial service charges  as shown in Ex. B-3. 

The District Forum made it  clear that the fact of collecting premium by the insurance company on the original price of Rs.2,15,043/- is beneficiary to the complainant but not to the opposite parties 1 and 2. It is also made  clear that though the actual price paid by the complainant is Rs.1,86,832/- but the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs.2,15,043/-  on which premium was paid. The  details of Ex B3 Ledger Account makes it clear that no excess amount was collected by the opposite parties.  The complainant failed to substantiate the allegations of excess collection  by the opposite parties 1 and 2 .   The appeal  is devoid of merits.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum as justified.  In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.   Time for compliance four weeks.

Sd/- MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                  Sd/- MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                  DATED :   29.07.2010.