IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 29th day of September, 2015
Filed on 19.11.2011
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.377/2011
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. George Chacko 1. Sri. Prasanth . S. Kumar
Padinjaredam (Regional Sales Head)
Kelamangalam P.O. M/s. Indus Motors Ltd.
Thakazhy – 688 562 Opp. G.D. M. Auditorium
Alappuzha Kayamkulam
(By Adv. Vineeth P S)
2. Sri. Sreekumar, Sales Officer
M/s. Indus Motors Ltd.
–do-
(By Adv.B.Muralidhan &
P.A. Aboobaker)
3. Sri. Manoj, Sales Officer
-do-
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant had booked for an ALTO STD vehicle on 7.3.2011 and paid an amount of Rs.500/- in advance. The price fixed for this ALTO STD is Rs.2,34,000/-. Two days after he changed the model of the car to ALTO LX and the amount fixed for this case is Rs.2,70,000-. Then the opposite party informed the complainant that if he remit a further amount of Rs.16,000/- he can buy ALTO LXI and finally the complainant booked for an ALTO LXI Brick Red colour and the amount fixed is Rs.2,86,000/-. On 25.3.2011 an amount of Rs.2,85,000/- was transferred to opposite parties’ a/c. through Federal Bank, Pacha Branch. But the vehicle was delivered only on 12.4.2011 after taking Temporary Registration. The opposite parties assured that they will take the permanent registration RC book and other particulars will be sent trough post. Since the complainant was purchasing a vehicle for the first time he has no knowledge about the said proceedings. Thereafter the complainant is bound to pay an amount of Rs.21,500/- for taking permanent registration including fine of Rs.2000/- The complainant further alleged that they have charged an amount of Rs.12,000/- for additional accessories. Also the complainant, being an LIC agent is entitled to get a corporate bonus of Rs.2500/- and that also was not given by the opposite parties. The complainant alleged that they offered an amount of Rs.20,000/- as ‘March offer’ but they failed to produce the same. The opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice and hence filed this complaint seeking a compensation amount of Rs.40,000/-
2. The version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. The complainant has not made the manufacturer as a party to the proceedings. The complainant had booked a Maruti ALTO STD car on 7.3.2011 by accepting the terms and conditions mentioned in the order booking form. In clause 1 of terms and conditions of sales printed on the overleaf of the order form it is stated that at the time of booking, customers are required to deposit only the C-form price of the vehicle and the payment towards local sales tax, dealer commission etc. should be paid only at the time of taking delivery. In clause of the terms and condition, it is stated that the prices prevailing at the time of invoicing of the vehicle, by Maruti Udyog Ltd., will be applicable. On 7.3.2011 the complainant made a payment of Rs.500/- and the opposite parties have told the complainant that ALTO STD is ready for delivery, but he changed the model to ALTO LXI at his own option. These opposite parties had further informed the complainant that he has to remit the price as only on the date of final invoicing of the vehicle at the time of delivery and also he has to give a letter for the model change at his choice. But without any information the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.2,85,000/- on 25.3.2011 to the company’s account. The complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction and after that he cannot turn round and say that these opposite parties have charged excess price. The dealer cannot charge any excess price than allowed by manufacturer since it will results in the cancellation of dealership. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of any of these opposite parties. No mental agony is caused to the complainant and no hardships or loss sustained to the complainant by any of the acts of these opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs sought for in the complaint. There is no cause of action had arisen against these opposite parties for filing the above complaint. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. One witness was examined as PW2. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. First opposite party was examined as RW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2.
3. Considering the allegations of the complainant and contentions of the opposite parties this Forum has raised the following issues:-
- Whether the opposite parties had committed any deficiency in service
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
4. Issues 1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that he approached the opposite parties and booked for an ALTO STD Blue colour car on 8.3.2011 and paid an advance amount of Rs.500/- and the opposite parties assured that he is entitled for some offers termed ‘March offer’. Later the complainant changed his option from ALTO STD Blue colour to ALTO LX and finally to ALTO LXI Brick red colour. An amount of Rs.2,85,000/- has been transferred to the opposite party on 25.3.2011 towards the price of the vehicle.. Vehicle was delivered on 12.4.2011. But the opposite parties failed to provide the assured offer to the complainant. The complainant alleged the opposite party incurred the amount for Road Tax from the complainant, but they did not pay the same. So the complainant was forced to pay the Road tax including fine amounting to a total of Rs.21,500/-. It was further alleged that the opposite parties did gave the corporate bonus of Rs.2500/- for which he was eligible. Also the opposite parties charged for the accessories which were earlier assured to give free of cost. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint. According to the opposite parties, the said offers were applicable to Marui ALTO STD since he changed his option to ALTO LXI and same was delivered in the month of April and therefore he is not entitled for the ‘March offer’. The opposite parties further contended that they never assured the complainant that they will provide permanent registration of the vehicle. The highlighting point alleged by the complainant is that the opposite parties failed to provide the permanent registration and also charged for the accessories. From Ext.A3, vehicle invoice of ALTO LXI it can be seen that the order date is 8.3.2011 and from Ext.A4 the amount of Rs.2,85,000/- is transferred to opposite parties on 25.3.2011. So it is clear that the complainant booked the vehicle and the payment was also effected in the month of March. So definitely he is entitled for the ‘March offer’. But from the documents we can’t say that what are the offers included in March offer. So we can’t direct the opposite parties to refund the amount charged for the accessories. In Ext.A2 it is stated that there is a consumer offer of Rs.20,000/- for ALTO STD and ALTO LXI. So definitely it should be given to ALTO LXI also. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get the said offer. From Ext.A1 and A4 it can be seen that a total amount of Rs.2,85,500/- has been paid by the complainant. From Ext.A3 the price of the ALTO LXI is Rs.2,74,540/- No documents were produced to show that what is the exact on road price for ALTO LXI. In order to find out the on road price of ALTO LXI we have to add the price of the vehicle as mentioned in Ext. A3, Rs.2,74,540 along with Rs.100/- towards temporary registration, Rs.8500/- towards insurance and Rs.2500/- towards handling charge. So the total amount to be paid is Rs.2,85,640/-. The road tax is paid by the complainant and which is not calculated. Towards the said total amount of Rs.2,85,640/- the complainant paid Rs.2,85,500/- and which is evident from Ext.A1 and Ext.A4. Therefore the assured consumer offer of Rs.20,000/- was not been given to the complainant. From the Exts.A1 and A4 strengthened the allegation of the complainant he had booked the car and made the payment in March. So the complainant is entitled to get the consumer offer of Rs.20,000/- which was assured by the opposite parties as March Offer. When the first opposite party was examined as RW1, he deposed that the complainant is eligible for the corporate offer since he is a LIC agent. So the complainant is entitled to get the corporate offer of Rs.2500/- also. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Since the primary grievances of the complainant having been met adequately we refrain from awarding compensation. In the light of above discussions the complaint is allowed accordingly.
In the result, complaint is allowed.The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.22,500/- (Rupees twenty two thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant.The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings.The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get 10% interest per annum for the amount Rs. 22,500/- from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2015
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - George Chacko (Witness)
PW2 - Mathew Antony (Witness)
Ext. A1 - Oder booking commitment checklist
Ext.A2 - Work sheet
Ext.A3 - Tax vehicle invoice
Ext.A4 - Receipt dated 25.3.2011
Ext.A5 - Copy of invoice dated 19.4.2011
Ext.A6 - Copy of the Form TR 5
Ext.A7 - Copy of the certificate
Ext.A8 - Advocate notice dated18.6.11
Ext.A9 - Copy of the Certificate of registration
Ext.A10 - Invoice of Maruti Alto Lxi (Subject to objection)
Ext.A11 - Copy of the legal notice (Subject to objection)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Prasanth S Kumar (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the Tax/Vehicle Invoice
Ext.B2 - Receipt dated 09.03.2011
// True Copy //
By Order
To Senior Superintendent
Complainant/Oppo. Parties/S.F
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
