Date of filing    : 23-08-2013

                                                                     Date of order   : 22 -05-2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.194/2013

                      Dated this, the   22^nd     day of  May   2014

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                          : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL                               : MEMBER

 Peethambaran.M.R,                                                      : Complainant

S/o.T.Raghavan, R/at Chembarika,

Chandragiri.Po, Kalnad,

Kasaragod Taluk & District.

(In Person)

 PACE Motors, Adkathbail,                                 : Opposite party

Kasaragod.

(Adv.Madhavan Malankad, Kasaragod)

                                                                         O R D E R

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER

            The nutshell of the complainants case is that complainant purchased a Unicorn Bike.  When the complainant approached the opposite party for a quotation for purchase of the Bike, the opposite party issued a quotation in which an amount of Rs.1000/- was shown as additional amount as handling charge.  The opposite party has not issued any bill for the same.  It is noticed that opposite party is charging the so called handling charge of Rs.1000/- from every customer and due to this act of the opposite party complainant had suffered physical strain and mental agony.

2.            Notice was issued to the opposite party and Adv. Madhavan Malankad appeared and filed vakalth and version.  In the version opposite party admitted that while purchasing the Bike a sum of Rs.1000/-was collected towards handling charge. It included pre-delivery inspection charges, fitting of extra items in the vehicle, petrol charge to take the vehicle to the RTO for registration and back to the show room and such miscellaneous expenses and therefore opposite party is not liable to refund the amount.

3.         Complainant filed chief affidavit and he was also adduced further evidence.  Exts A1 to A4 were marked but he was not cross-examined by the counsel for this opposite party.  The issues raised for consideration are:

                 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

             2. If so, what the relief?

4.         Issue No.1:  The complainant purchased a Unicorn Bike and when the complainant approached the opposite party for quotation and in the quotation an additional amount  is  shown for Rs.1000/- when the complainant questioned the opposite party, he told that it is this handling charge and the opposite party was reluctant to issue bill for the same and it is imposed on every customer. While going through the version it includes pre-delivery inspection charge, fitting of extra items in the vehicle, petrol charge to take vehicle to the RTO and back, service rendered by the staff of the opposite party for taking the vehicle to the RTO for registration and back to show room and such miscellaneous expenses.  According to the opposite party complainant paid it with his consent and without raising any objection.  But complainant argued that he had already raised his objection at the time of purchase and he had even insisted the opposite party for the issuance of a separate specific bill for the handling charge for which opposite party was never ready for the same and issued only a receipt which was marked as Ext.A4.  But on   perusal of Ext.A1 quotation form we  finds that the allegation of complaint is proved by him.  Moreover, we are of the opinion that additional charge levied on the customer is nothing but a burden on the pretext of pre-delivery inspection  charge, petrol charge etc. In fact we are surprised the fact that  what service is required  for a newly purchased vehicle?  The acts of the opposite party lacks the principles of good faith in imposing such an additional amount to enrich himself that too on each and every delivery of  vehicle by opposite party daily. The complainant in his argument stated that he was ready to take the vehicle for its registration by himself .  By considering all these aspects, the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party is proved and the interference  of the Forum is highly necessary in such a situation against the unjustifiable act of the opposite party.

            Under this circumstances the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1000/- which is the handling charge with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and  Rs.3000/- towards cost of proceedings. Time for compliance is one   month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. A2. 30-07-2013 copy of Quotation

A2. 20-8-2013 copy of Invoice issued by OP to complainant.

A3.28-03-2013. Provisional Cash Receipt.

A4.28-03-2013 Provisional Cash Receipt.

PW1. Peethambaran M.R.

 MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Pj/