O R D E R

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President

            The case of complainant is that on 7/2/06 the complainant noticed an advertisement in the news paper that if  anybody purchasing Innova vehicle from the respondent offered  free periodic maintenance upto  40,000km and free comprehensive insurance for one year.  Attracted by this advertisement the complainant purchased an Innova vehicle and paid Rs.9,02,660/-.  At the time of payment complainant enquired about the free offer and they replied that after including the offer they have collected the amount.  After payment the complainant demanded bill from 2^nd  respondent and told that bill  is to be issued by the   1^st respondent.  Later a bill for Rs.8,53,539/- was issued to complainant by dated 10/2/06.  In the bill the entire amount paid by complainant is not mentioned.  When enquired it was told that they will  issue bills  like this.  On 5/7/06 they issued a letter which shows how they adjusted the amount.   The respondent had collected the amount against the offer made by respondent.  It is unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint.

          2. Counter in brief is that he respondent admitted the offer published in the news paper.  At the time of purchase of the vehicle the show room  price of the vehicle was Rs.9,02,660/-.  After deducting the offers respondent had receivedRs.9,02,660/- only.  The insurance amount is Rs.32,886/- and the smile package amount is Rs.16,235/-.  The show room price is Rs.9,02,660/- plus the insurance amount and the smile package amount is the total amount to be paid by the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle.  Thus the grand total  is Rs.9,51,751/-.  From Rs.9,51,751/- offer amount is to be deducted, then Rs.9,02,660/- is the show room price of the vehicle.  But the comprehensive insurance amount and smile package have been deducted from the show room price and respondent had issued invoice for Rs.8,53,539/-.  Actually the offer amount is credited towards the show room price.  At the time of delivery of the vehicle the complainant expressed his haste  and told that bill is to be issued later.  So bill is not issued at that time.  The other averments in the complaint are incorrect and denied.  The smile package bill was given to complainant on 24/2/06.  The insurance company is to be issued the insurance bill.  The company has issued insurance cover note numbered 899194.  Letter was given to complainant how offer amount was adjusted.  There was no unfair trade practice.  Hence dismiss.

          3. Points for consideration are:

1) Was there any unfair trade practice committed by respondents?

2) If so reliefs and costs?

          4. Evidence adduced consists of Exhibits P1 to P10, Exhibits R1 to R3.  Both submitted no oral evidence.

          5. The dispute is  with regard to noncompliance of offer made by the respondents.  It is the case of complainant that the respondent made an advertisement in news paper on 7/7/06 stating that if purchase Innova vehicle from the respondents they will give free periodic maintenance upto 40,000km and free comprehensive insurance for one year.  According to complainant only after seeing the advertisement complainant wanted to purchase the vehicle.  But the 2^nd respondent levied Rs.9,02,660/- from the complainant and stated that after including the offer they have collected the amount  But when bill issued it shows the payment of an amount of Rs.8,53,539/-.  So the complainant  alleging unfair trade practice  against respondents.

          6. It is the case of respondents that at the time of purchase of the vehicle by complainant the show room price of the vehicle was Rs.9,02,660/- and after deducting the offers the respondent had received only Rs.9,02,660/-.  According to them the insurance amount is Rs.32,886/- and smile package amount is Rs.16,235/-.  So the respondent stated that the amount to be paid by the complainant was Rs.9,02,660+32,886/-+16,325/-.  So according to them the grand total is Rs.9,51,781/-.  Out of which offer amount has to be deducted and Rs.9,02,660/- is the show room price of the vehicle.  At the same time respondents stated that the comprehensive insurance amount and smile package have been deducted from the show room price and respondent had issued invoice for Rs.8,53,539/-.  So according to respondent the offer amount is to be deducted from  Rs.9,51,781/- and not from Rs.9,02,660/-.

          7. The respondents produced Exhibits R1 to R3 documents in which Exhibit R1 is the price list of Toyota vehicles.  As per Exhibit R1 the price of G3 model tyre Toyota Innova car which was purchased by complainant is Rs.9,02,660/-.  So according to the respondents the grand total will come Rs.9,51,781/-.  But according to them the complainant paid only Rs.9,02,660/-.  It is the case of respondents that Rs.49,125/- has already been reduced from the show room price and the complainant should be paid Rs.9,02,660/-.  Then the question remains why Exhibit P3 bill has been issued to complainant.  As per Exhibit P3 the price of one  G3 Innova is Rs.7,58,701.33 excluding vat  etc.  After accepting  Rs.9,02,660/- from the complainant the respondent issued Exhibit P3 bill.  So the complainant stated that the  actual cost of Innova G3 is Rs.8,51,539/- and comprehensive premium amount is Rs.32,886/- and smile package amount is Rs.16,235/-.  So according to complainant as per advertisement they are not entitled to collect comprehensive insurance amount and smile package.  So complainant stated that  against the offer they collected Rs.49,121/- in excess and this is an unfair trade practice.  So according to complainant the respondents collected excess amount from him.  Since Exhibit P3 would show the price as Rs.8,53,539/- the respondents have no right to impose any other amount.  Respondents contended hasty attitude of complainant etc. in the counter. But there is no evidence adduced to prove the same.  So the circumstances described in the counter are not reliable.

          8. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return the excess amount of Rs.49,121/-(Rupees Forty nine thousand one hundred and twenty one only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from  the  date of complaint till realization with costs Rs.500/- within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

          Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 18^th   day of August 2011.

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   Padmini Sudheesh, President  

                                                                             Sd/-                                                                                                   Rajani.P.S., Member

                                                                             Sd/-                                                                                                             M.S.Sasidharan, Member                                               Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

Ext. P1 Lr. dtd. 5/7/2006

Ext. P2 Lr. dtd. 19/8/06

Ext. P3 Tax Invoice form

Ext. P4  Lr. dtd. 28/7/06

Ext. P5 Postal acknowledgement

Ext. P6 Price list

Ext. P7 Lr. dtd. 8/7/06

Ext. P8 Paper cutting

Ext. P9 Receipt dtd. 7/2/06

Ext. P10 Receipt dtd. 8/2/06

Respondents Exhibits

Ext. R1 Copy of lr. dtd. 23/1/06

Ext. R2 Copy of tax invoice

Ext. R3 Lr. dtd. 27/12/08

                                                                                                Id/-

                                                                                President