BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 27th day of March 2018
Filed on : 18/03/2017
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.121/2017
Between
Jawahar P.M., : Complainant
S/o. Madavan, Pullarkat house, (By Adv. V.A. Pradeep Kumar,
Nanthiyattukunnam, N. Paravur,Ernakulam-683 513)
N. Paravur-683 513,
Ernakulam.
And
Authorised signatory, : Opposite party
Manager, (By Adv. V. Krishna Menon, Surya J
T.V. Sundaram Ayyangar Menon and Menon, Kumaran Arcade.
& Sons Pvt. Ltd., Power House road, (Market road,
Renault Kochi, North end, Kochi-682 018)
Door No. 23/64912,
Angel Archede,
Kochi-687 022.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant had purchased a Duster car of 2016 model for an amount of Rs. 12,15,375/- and remitted a sum of Rs. 13,84,298/-. On 30-09-2014 by cheque and e-transfer. But the value of the car as per bill No. 1700659 was an amount of Rs. 12,15,375/-. The opposite party had collected an amount of Rs. 47,385/- as additional amount from the complainant . The complainant issued a letter to repay the excess amount of Rs. 47,385/- collected from him by the opposite party. The action of the opposite party is illegal and the complainant was put to great mental agony. The complainant seeks compensation for deficiency in service at Rs. 5,000/- and compensation for mental agony at Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant therefore prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay back Rs. 47,385/-. The complainant also seek the costs of the proceedings, through this complaint.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act. The opposite party was unnecessarily made a party in this complaint. The complainant had booked the vehicle after personally inspecting the same and he paid Rs. 9,00,000/-. On 30-09-2016 for booking the car, the showroom price of the car was Rs. 13,17,455/-. The complainant was given a cash discount of Rs. 1,02,080/-. However, as road tax is payable on the X-showroom price irrespective of cash discount. The road tax in this case was Rs. 1,32,295/-, which was collected from the complainant with 10% road tax. The complainant was also given extended warranty for the vehicle on collection of Rs. 11,920/- from him. Rs. 11,017/- had been collected from the complainant for various accessories booked by him. The complainant was liable to pay a total amount of Rs. 13,82,862/- towards the price of the vehicle. As against the amount of Rs. 13,82,862/- payable by the complainant he had already paid Rs. 13,84,298/- . Therefore the complainant had paid Rs. 1,436/- in excess. The complainant was requested to come and to receive the cheque for Rs. 1,936/- by way of refund. However, he refused to accept the same. There was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The evidence in this case consists of Exbt. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the complainant. The opposite party marked Exbts. B1 to B7 documents without any oral evidence.
5. On the above pleadings the followings issues were raised for consideration
i. Whether the complainant has proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
ii. Reliefs and costs.
7. Issue No. i. Exbt. A1 is the copy of the order form for booking the car on 30-09-2016 by paying Rs. 9,00,000/- towards advance by the complainant. Exbt. A2 is the price lists of various variants of the car and the individual offered price. The complainant was asked to pay Rs. 13,84.298/- and after deducting the advance amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- the complainant was to pay Rs. 4,84,298/- towards the price of the vehicle which would include the insurance amount . Exbt. A3 is a letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party stating that he had paid Rs. 47,385/- in excess. According to the complainant the value of the car as per the bill was only 12,15,375/- with registration amount would be Rs. 13,36,913/- and an excess amount was paid by the complainant at Rs. 47,385/-. The complainant has no evidence with regard to the payment of Rs. 46,975/- towards insurance charges.
8. The opposite party had produced Exbt. B1 to B7 documents which would show that the insurance amount was paid by the opposite party. The excess amount collected from the complainant as per their statement of accounts was only Rs. 1,942/- and that amount is seen returned to the complainant on 10-12-2016 by an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant, the copy of which is marked as Exbt. B7.
9. As the complainant was issued with Exbt. B7 cheque, we find that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged. The complainant has not produced the original documents regarding the terms and conditions for the purchase of the vehicle and the dispute regarding the quantum of payment cannot be determined by the Consumer Forum by taking it as an issue of deficiency in service. The issue is therefore found against the complainant.
Issue No. ii. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of March 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of customer order form
A2 : Copy of statement
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 06-01-2017
Opposite party's exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : True Copy of customer order
form dt. 30-09-2016
B2 : Copy of retail invoice form
B3 : True copy of road tax
payable dt. 16-05-2017
B4 : True copy of vehicle details
dt. 22-04-2017
B5 : True copy of invoice
dt. 27-10-2016
B6 : True copy of statement
of account
B7 : True copy of Cheque
dt. 10-12-2016
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
