This C.C. is coming before us for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri G. Harender Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1; and of Sri. K. Ravindranath, Advocate for opposite party No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant purchased John Deere Tractor vide Model No.5045D-45HP, Chassis No.1PY5045DJDAO10464 and Engine No.PY3029D325313 for Rs.4,81,526/- from the opposite party No.1 by exchanging old tractor @Rs.2,85,000/-.  On behalf of complainant, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. paid the said amount of Rs.4,81,526/- to the opposite party No.1 towards balance amount of Rs.3,41,000/- including additional charges i.e. in total Rs.4,81,526/-.  The complainant further submitted that the opposite party No.1 mentioned the rate of Tractor as Rs.6,66,000/- whereas the original invoice was issued for Rs.6,26,000/-.  The opposite party No.1 collected Rs.40,000/- towards excess amount and Rs.10,000/- towards weights and bumper from the complainant and as such the complainant alleges the cheating on the part of opposite party No.1 and issued legal notice on 21-10-2014.  Inspite of receiving legal notice, there was no response from the opposite party No.1, due to which, the complainant suffered a lot and prayed this Forum to award Rs.50,000/- by directing the opposite parties to refund the excess amount collected by opposite party No.1 and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages together with interest @12% per annum and costs.

3.      In support of his case the complainant filed affidavit and Exhibits A-1 to A-9.

4.      On being noticed, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsels and filed counters by denying the averments of complaint. 

In its counter, the opposite party No.1 submitted that it issued data of customer account / ledger VI – 273, dt. 10-02-2014 for Rs.6,66,000/- towards cost of New vehicle but had given Invoice dated 07-03-2014 for Rs.6,26,000/- by giving discount @Rs.40,000/- on the rate of New Tractor.  Further it is also submitted that before issuance of Invoice dt.07-03-2014 the opposite party No.1 had given original data of New Tractor to the complainant.  The opposite party No.1 agreed to take over the old tractor of complainant @Rs.2,45,000/-, for benefit of complainant, it had given discount of Rs.40,000/- for promoting company sales, accordingly, the total price of old tractor was shown as Rs.2,85,000/-, which is reflected in the data of customer account / ledger dt. 10-02-2014.   The opposite party No.1 conducted auction proceedings for sale of old tractor and got 3 quotations for Rs.2,15,000/-, Rs.2,18,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-.  Finally, sold the old Tractor to the highest bidder on 26-02-2014 and also arranged finance of Rs.4,82,700/- from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd,. After including temporary and permanent registration charges, Hypothecation / lease charges and the charges for weights and bumper, the original rate of New Tractor is @ Rs.7,03,000/-.  And after deducting Rs.2,85,000/- towards cost of old Tractor and adding Rs.50,000/- towards finance arrears of old Tractor and also adding Rs.14,700/- towards documentation charges, the total payable amount is arrived to Rs.4,82,700/-.  The complainant had given the consent by agreeing the above mentioned terms.  The opposite party No.1 further submitted that after utilizing the tractor for 6 months, by suppressing the real facts, the complainant issued legal notice with ill intention.  In response to the legal notice, the opposite party No.1 had given reply dt. 12-11-2014, therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs as there was no deficiency of service on its part.          

          Along with the counter the opposite party No.1 filed photocopy of data of customer account / ledger dt. 10-02-2014, marked under Exhibit B-1.

5.      The opposite party No.2 filed its counter averments by submitting that the opposite party No.2 is the Manufacturer and sells the products to its authorized dealers and in turn the dealers sells the products to the end customers.  The relationship of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 are the principal to principal basis, so, the opposite party No.2 is not liable for any acts, liabilities of opposite party No.1 to its end customers.  There is no allegation, made by the complainant against the opposite party No.2 regarding the deficiency of service and such prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6.      In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-       

It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased John Deere Tractor vide Model No.5045D-45HP, Chassis No.1PY5045DJDAO10464 and Engine No.PY3029D325313 from the opposite party No.1 by exchanging his old Tractor for Rs.2,85,000/- and also not in dispute that the remaining amount was received by the opposite party No.1 from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., for Rs.4,81,526/- towards finance amount.  The only dispute is with regard to the collection of excess amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards weights and bumper.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party No.1 had issued data of customer account / ledger dt.10-02-2014 for Rs.6,66,000/- accordingly, the total cost of Tractor was arrived to Rs.7,03,000/- by calculating the charges under different heads  but issued Invoice for Rs.6,26,000/- only.  In order to prove his case, the complainant placed Exhibits A-1 to A-3.  Exhibit A-1 is the receipt dt. 04-03-2014 for Rs.4,81,526/- issued by the opposite party No.1 towards collection of Finance amount.  Exhibit A-2 is the data of customer Account / ledger VI- 273 and Exhibit A-3 is the Invoice dt.07-03-2014 for Rs.6,26,000/-.  As per Exhibit A-2 it is clear that the opposite party No.1 prepared the ledger by mentioning the cost of New Tractor as Rs.6,66,000/-.  After including temporary and permanent charges, hypothecation / lease charges and the charges for weights and bumper, finally they arrived to the cost of Tractor @ Rs.7,03,000/-.  After deducting cost of old Tractor @ Rs.2,85,000/- from Rs.7,03,000/- they added the finance arrears of old Tractor for Rs.50,000/- and Rs.14,700/- towards documentation charges.  Finally, the total payable amount of New Tractor was arrived @ Rs.4,82,700/-.  As per exhibits A-1 and A-2 the financier released Rs.4,81,526/- on 04-03-2014 through RTGS towards finance amount.   Despite that the opposite party No.1 issued Invoice on 07-03-2014 for Rs.6,26,000/-.  As per Exhibits A-2 and A-3 it is clear that the opposite party No.1 mentioned the cost of vehicle at different rates. The data of customer account / ledger was issued for Rs.40,000/- excess on the Invoice amount.  Collection of excess amount by mentioning different rates on  ledger and Invoice is clearly amounts to unfair trade practice.  On the other hand the opposite party No.1 contended that it had given discount of Rs.40,000/- on the original cost of New Tractor and no excess amount was collected from the complainant but failed to file any proof in this regard.  Moreover, the said discount was not reflected in anywhere either in the ledger or in the Invoice.  Without filing any material, oral contentions are not considerable for proper adjudication.  In this regard, we have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Kamal Auto Hyundai Vs. Pawan Chand and Ors. In RP.No.4503/2009, wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission held that the opposite party is liable to refund the excess amount, collected by it together with interest @9% per annum from the date of total payment of purchase amount.  In the light of afore said reliance and in view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the opposite party No.1 is liable to refund the excess amount of Rs.40,000/- collected by it through the data of customer account / ledger dt. 10-02-2014. The complaint with regard to the refund of Rs.10,000/- collected by the opposite party No.1 towards weights and bumper is rejected as the complainant failed to establish that it is the duty of the opposite party No.1 to provide those parts along with the Tractor without collecting additional charges.  Accordingly, the point is answered.      

7.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party No.1 to refund Rs.40,000/- to the complainant, collected towards excess amount together with interest @9% per annum from the date of actual payment i.e. 04-03-2014 within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs.  The complaint against the opposite party No.2 is dismissed.

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 28^th day of July, 2017.

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.