By Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer protection Act for an order directing the Opposite parties to refund the excess amount of Rs.27,600/- collected from the Complainant with 18% interest from 18.08.2015 till repayment, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The complainant had approached 2^nd Opposite Party for the purchase of Mahindra D13200 Vehicle for the use of Complainant's concern. As per quotation, on 18.08.2015 2^nd Opposite Party collected Rs.6,90,000/- from the Complainant and assured to meet insurance premium. 2^nd Opposite Party delivered the vehicle and purchase bill. On verifying the bill, the Complainant found that the actual cost of the vehicle is only Rs.6,62,400/- only. So an excess amount of Rs.27,600 is collected by the Opposite Parties from the Complainant. It is illegal and unfair trade practice. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite Parties and the Opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of Opposite parties, Opposite Parties contended that the Complaint is not maintainable as regards to territorial jurisdiction. The Opposite parties also contended that the Complainant is not a consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. The Complainant purchased the vehicle for business purpose. The Complainant approached 2^nd Opposite party on 11.08.2015 with a desire to purchase vehicle and informed him that the total price of vehicle was Rs.7,00,300/- and Rs.2,000/- towards handling charge. He is informed that cash discount of 10,000/- is there also. So he is informed that the he need to pay only Rs.6,92,300/-. The Complainant sought free insurance over the vehicle. The Complainant was informed that there was no provision for free insurance. Any way as a matter of goodwill, the 1^st Opposite Party agreed for free insurance. The Complainant by way of two payments, made a total payment Rs.6,90,000/- to the Opposite Party. On receipt of Rs.6,90,000/- instead of Rs.6,92,300/-, the opposite parties had delivered the vehicle to the Complainant on 21.08.2015. The handling charge of Rs.2,000/- also waived. No amount towards insurance of vehicle had been collected from the Complainant. No additional amount towards insurance had been collected from the Complainant. An amount of Rs.27,600/- towards the insured premium had been deducted from the total price of the vehicle and the Complainant had been issued with an invoice for Rs.6,62,400/- towards the price of the vehicle. There is no illegality or infirmity in the procedure adopted by the Opposite party. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite parties.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of

Opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost?

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Opposite parties also filed proof affidavit and the Opposite Party is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 to B3 are marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of quotation, Ext.A2 is the copy of Invoice, Ext.A3 is the copy of delivery order, Ext.A4 series are the copy of Lawyer notice issued to the Opposite Parties by the Complainant, its postal receipts, Acknowledgments. Ext.A5 is the copy of Motor vehicle cover note of Insurance Company. Ext.B1 is the copy of price list dated 01.07.2015. Ext.B2 is the copy of new vehicle delivery note, Ext.B3 is the Insurance certificate and policy schedule. The case of Complainant is that the Opposite party had collected more amount towards the price of the vehicle and out of that amount, insurance is paid. So the insurance is not free as agreed by Opposite Party. The case of Opposite Party is that the actual price of the vehicle was Rs.7,00,300/-. Towards handling charges Rs.2,000/- is also payable by the Complainant. Out of this 7,00,300/-, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was given as discount and the balance amount is Rs.6,90,300/-. Handling charges is waived and only collected Rs.6,90,000/- from the Complainant out of which a sum of Rs.27,600/- is paid as insurance amount. The balance Rs.6,62,400/- is shown as invoice price. On perusal of all records produced for either side, the Forum found that price shown in quotation, tax invoice, price list, insured value etc are different. In Ext.A1 quotation, the price shown is 6,90,000/- in Ext.A2 Invoice, price shown in Rs.6,62,448/-, In Ext.B1 price list, the price shown is Rs.7,00,300/- in Ext.B3 insurance, the value shown is Rs.6,41,535/-. Here the question is whether the Opposite party convinced the Complainant regarding the exact price of the vehicle. The Opposite party had not produced any documents to show that the opposite party convinced the Complainant regarding the exact price of vehicle. In Ext.A1 quotation, the actual price is not shown. No discount amount is shown in Ext.A1. So normally a purchaser may be confused regarding the actual price of vehicle. The seller should be more vigilant and should convince the exact price of vehicle before purchase. Here in this case also the purchaser got confused regarding the price of the vehicle which resulted in filing this case. The case of Opposite Party may be true. But opposite Party should be straight forward and the Opposite Party should convince the party regarding all aspects of sale, price and discount etc. The Opposite Party failed to convince the purchaser regarding the actual price of the vehicle. So it is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant

is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as compensation for the deficiency of service from their part to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Opposite Parties should comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and  pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22^nd day of May 2017.

Date of Filing:11.01.2016.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Mathew Jose Business.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Biju. Branch Manager, TVS & Sons, Kozhikode.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Quotation dt:11.08.2015.

A2. Copy of Tax Invoice. dt:18.08.2016.

A3. Copy of Letter. dt:18.08.2015.

A4 series Copy of Lawyer Notice.

A5. Copy of Motor Vehicle Cover Note.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Price list with Insurance Premium.

B2. Copy of New Vehicle Delivery Note. dt:21.08.2015.

B3. Copy of Motor Insurance certificate cum Policy Schedule. dt:21.09.2015.