By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The complaint in short is as follows:-
1. The complainant paid an advance amount of Rs. 1000/- to the first opposite party and thereby booked a two-wheeler vehicle which is manufactured by the second opposite party. The complainant availed financial assistance and thereby remitted an amount of Rs.2,05,194/- towards the cost of the two wheeler and thereby the first opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 07/08/2023. But within few days of use, the complainant could find the side stand sensor of the vehicle is not properly working. The complainant contacted the first opposite party on 08/09/2023 for the first service, but the opposite party could not rectify the defect of side stand. But thereafter so far the opposite party could rectify the said defect of the vehicle.
2. The complainant submitted that the opposite party recovered an amount of Rs. 2, 05,194 /- towards the cost of the product but not accounted advance payment of Rs. 1,000/-.
3. The complainant made enquiry about the true value of the vehicle directly with the other dealers and through internet and he could understand the X- showroom price of the vehicle as Rs. 1,85,505/-. The complainant availed a quotation from DRS Traders , Ernakulum and found the same that the X-showroom price of the vehicle is Rs. 1,85,505/-. But the opposite party recovered an amount of Rs. 1,95,422.86/- as X-showroom price and the opposite party collected a total amount of Rs. 2,05,194/- including the tax for the vehicle. Hence the complainant submitted that the opposite party collected exorbitant amount from the complainant as X-showroom price. The complainant alleges that the opposite party did not correct the defect of side stand.
4. The complainant contacted the opposite party several times, but the opposite party did not heed the request of the complainant. Hence the complainant alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties. The prayer of the complainant is to direct to refund the excess amount Rs.9,917.86 /- collected from the complainant and also refund Rs. 658/-the collected amount towards advance along with interest at the rate of 12%. The complainant also sought direction to the opposite parties to correct side stand sensor complaint. The complainant also prayed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest and cost of Rs. 25,000/- .
5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice none of the opposite parties turned up and so they set exparte.
6. The complainant filed affidavit and documents. The documents marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is copy of tax invoice dated 07/08/2023 for Rs. 2,05194/-/-Ext. A2 is copy of print out of advertisement revealing the X-showroom price of the product as Rs. 1,85,505/-. Ext. A3 is copy of enquiry /quotation issued from DRS Traders, Ernakulam dated 27/07/2023.
7. Heard complainant. Perused affidavit and documents. There is no contra evidence against the case of the complainant. Ext. A1 shows that the first opposite party recovered an amount of Rs. 2, 05,194/- from the complainant. Ext. A2 shows the X-Showroom price of the vehicle as Rs. 1, 85,505/- . Ext. A3 shows that the X-show room price of the vehicle as Rs. 1, 85,505/-. Hence the case of the complainant stands proved. It can be seen that the opposite parties collected excess amount from the complainant. Moreover the complainant alleged the side stand sensor of the vehicle was with defects and the same stands not rectified by the opposite parties. It can be seen that the complainant has not produced document to show that the side stand of the vehicle is with defects as alleged by the complainant. There is no document to show advance payment of Rs. 1000/- to the opposite parties. Hence we are not inclined to consider the refund of advance amount of Rs. 1000/- and the prayer to rectify the defect of side stand sensor.
8. In the light of above facts and circumstances, we find the complainant is entitled for a reasonable amount as compensation in addition to the refund of cost in excess collected by the opposite parties.
9. Hence the commission allow the complaint as follows:-
- The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 9917/-(Rupees Nine thousand nine hundred and seventeen only) to the complainant towards the amount collected in excess on account of the cost of the vehicle.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant on account of unfair trade practice and thereby caused inconvenience and hardships.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay cost of the Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the entire above amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint to till realization.
Dated this 30th day of April, 2024.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A3
Ext. A1: Copy of tax invoice dated 07/08/2023 for Rs. 2, 05194/-.
Ext. A2: Copy of print out of advertisement revealing the X-showroom price of the
product as Rs. 1, 85,505/-.
Ext. A3: Copy of enquiry /quotation issued from DRS Traders, Ernakulam dated
27/07/2023.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
