Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. Complainant is the owner of a Santro Car bearing Register No.KL.3R-6302.  The said vehicle is having a comprehensive insurance policy from United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 26.4.09 and sustained huge damage.  Complainant entrusted her vehicle to opposite party for repairing.  At that time the opposite party assured that they would rectify all the defects with perfection within that time.  They also made to believe the complainant that they got the dealership of the Hyundai Company.  By believing this complainant handed over her vehicle to the opposite party for repairing.  On 26.5.2009 the opposite party returned the complainant’s vehicle after the completion of repairing and charged ` 40,000.  Complainant paid the said amount.

                   3. Having a valid comprehensive insurance policy holder the complainant requested the opposite party to do the needful to realise the expenditure of repairing from the insurance company.  The opposite party prepared a bill for ` 35,534 dated 27.5.09 submitted it to the insurance company.  After the receipt of the said bill the insurance company released an amount of `25,450 to complainant.  She enquired the matter to the insurance company for the releasing of a meagre amount when compared with the actual expenditure.  The insurance company officials stated that the opposite party actually charged higher amount in the articles replaced for the vehicle and the company is not liable to pay the higher rates than that of the actual market value of the articles replaced.  A direct enquiry was conducted by the complainant and convinced that the opposite party charged higher rates on all articles than that of the Hyundai Company rate.  On that account alone the opposite party extracted an amount of ` 7,350 from the complainant.  The opposite party has no right to prepare a lesser bill for the insurance purpose and they ought to issue the actual bill of  ` 40,000, the amount exactly collected from the complainant.  Similarly, the opposite party received an amount of ` 1,750 from the complainant on account of Fender Denting and Painting which already included in labour charge.  This is also unjust and unfair.

                   4. The complainant informed the discrepancies to the opposite party and requested to settle the matter amicably.  But they did not resolve the matter.  This caused mental agony and distress to the complainant.  The act of opposite party is a clear deficiency of service.  Hence this complaint for realising an amount of  ` 7,350 with compensation and cost.

                   5. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  According to the opposite party, the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident which caused damage including damage to the Fender.  She brought the vehicle to the opposite party for repairs.  The opposite party prepared the list of parts to be changed with its value.  A cash bill dated 26.05.2009 for ` 29,529-25 was handed over to the complainant.  The cash bill was accompanied by a service bill of even dated for ` 10,854-70.  After the repairing was completed, the opposite party paid ` 40,000 out of the total bill of ` 40,383-95.  The opposite party given discount of ` 383-95.

                   6. According to the opposite party, the vehicle is insured with United India Insurance Company and according to their policy regulations; a separate bill to them was forwarded by the opposite party containing the items allowable by the insurance company.  The bills contain the amount of ` 35,534-41.  That bill is dated 25.07.2009.  Such a bill is so prepared for the purpose of the policy regulation of the insurance company and the company would not pay certain items in the original bill dated 26.05.2009.  The insurance company deducts certain percentage for depreciation that may the reason that they have released on ` 25,450 to the complainant.  For that the complainant has to agitate against the insurance company.

                   7. The fender denting and painting for which ` 1,750 was charged is actually done on the vehicle which the insurance company will not pay and the same is not included in the cash bill dated 26.05.2009.  The amount is included in the service bill dated 26.05.2009.  Therefore, the opposite party has not charged higher rates on all articles than that of the rates prescribed by the supplier.  Hence opposite party has not extracted any excessive amount as alleged in the complaint. 

                   8. The A.C condenser of the vehicle was supplied by Auto Cat Services, Kayamkulam, the authorised Hyundai Service Centre and they have charged the value of the said item excessively, which includes transportation, which comes to Rs. 7,500 and that was charged in the bill.  Subsequently, the company reduced the price of the condenser to ` 5,500 when it came to the notice of the opposite party.  Thereafter, the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant stating the mistake crept in is due to the change in price of the spare parts and expressed their apology.  As such, ` 2,000 is charged in excess for the A/c condenser and the opposite party expressed their willingness to pay back the amount of ` 2,000 to the complainant directly.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or suffering as alleged.  She is not entitled to get compensation.  Therefore, they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                   9. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:

(1)             Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

(2)             Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?

(3)             Reliefs and Costs? 

                    10. Evidence of the complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the authorised agent along with certain documents.  He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5.

                   11.  Evidence of opposite party consists of the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party along with certain documents.  He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. B1 to B3.  After the closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

                   12. Point Nos.1 to 3:-  In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant’s authorized agent filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5.  Ext.A1 is the authorisation letter issued by the complainant in favour of PW1.  Ext.A2 is the bill for ` 40,000 dated 26.5.09 issued by opposite party.  Ext.A3 is the bill for  ` 35,534 dated 27.5.09 issued by opposite party.  Ext.A4 is the letter-dated 3.8.09 issued by opposite party to complainant.  Ext.A5 is the price list of Hyundai Company for the replaced parts, issued by M.G.F. Hyundai, Kottayam.

                   13. In order to prove the opposite party’s contentions, opposite party filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B3.  Ext.B1 is the estimate-dated 18.5.09 prepared by opposite party given to United India Insurance Company.  Ext.B2 is the copy of the cash bill dated 27.5.09 issued by opposite party to the complainant. Ext.B3 is the bill of A.C condenser from Auto Cat Services, Kayamkulam. 

                      14. On the basis of the contention and averment of the parties, we have perused the entire material on record.  Complainant’s case is that opposite party charged higher rates to articles replaced than the actual rate of Hyundai Company in repairing her vehicle.  Therefore complainant could not get the insurance amount at the higher rates and got only a meagre amount, which causes economic loss, mental agony and distress.  Opposite party’s contention is that they did not charged higher rates on all articles than the rate prescribed by the supplier.  According to them, insurance company would not pay for certain items and also they will deduct a certain percentage as depreciation.  If any grievances, complainant has to agitate against them.  Moreover, an excess amount of ` 2,000 charged in A/c condenser by Auto Cat Services, Kayamkulam.  According to opposite party, they are ready and willing to pay the said amount and the same has already informed to complainant. 

                   15. On a perusal of Ext.A2 and A3 it is learned that opposite party issued bill for ` 40,000 on 26.5.09 and ` 35,354 on 27.5.09 pertaining to the repairing of the vehicle.  Complainant paid ` 40,000 and submitted the bill of ` 35,354 to the insurance company for getting the insurance claim amount.  Insurance company paid only ` 25,450.  According to complainant, the opposite party extracted an amount of ` 7,350 by way of charging exorbitant rates to all replaced spare parts.  Ext.A4 shows that opposite party partially admitted the complainant’s grievances.  Ext.A5 is the price list of Hyundai parts as on 26.5.09, which shows that opposite party charged higher rates in Ext.A2 and A3.

                   16. On going through the available materials on record, it is evident that complainant paid Ext.A2 bill.  Ext.A3 shows that opposite party issued a subsequent lesser amount bill than Ext.A2 for the purpose of getting insurance claim.  Ext.A5 shows that opposite party quoted exorbitant price to articles in both Ext.A2 and A3.  Opposite party admitted the hike in price of articles in Ext.A4 and also stated in version that, they are ready and willing to pay ` 2,000 to the complainant.  Ext.B1 to B3 is incompatible with Ext.A5.  Since opposite party is an authorised service centre of Hyundai Company, they are duty bound to follow Ext.A5 price list.  Opposite party failed in their attempt to produce any material to show that the Hyundai Company has authorised them to collect higher price than Ext.A5.  Charging of exorbitant price has no basis and is unjustifiable and unscrupulous.  On a comparison of Ext.A2 and A5, it is found that opposite party had collected an excess amount of ` 7,350 from the complainant.  It is squarely an unfair trade practice.  Therefore, opposite party is liable to return the excess price collected with compensation and cost.  Opposite party is also directed not to indulge in such unfair trade practice.

                   16. In the result, complaint is allowed thereby opposite party is directed to return ` 7,350 (Rupees Seven Thousand Three hundred and Fifty only) with compensation of ` 2,000 (Rupees Thousand only) and a cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainant.  They are also directed under Sec.14(1) (f) to discontinue the said unfair trade practice.  The amount so awarded is to be given to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will follow at the rate of 9% interest from this date, till the realisation of the whole amount. 

                   Declared in the Open Forum on this the 12^th day of May, 2011.

                                                                                                               (Sd/-)

                                                                                                N. Premkumar,

                                                                                                      (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                  :         (Sd/-)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)              :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :         Shukoor

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Authorisation letter  executed by the complainant in favour of    

              Shukoor.

A2     :  Cash bill dated 26.5.09 for ` 40,000 issued by opposite party to the

              complainant. 

A3     :  Cash bill dated 27.5.09 for ` 35,534 issued by opposite party to the

             complainant. 

A4     :  Letter dated 3.8.09 sent by opposite party to the complainant.

A5     :  Letter dated 15.6.10 sent by the Manager, M.G.F. Hyundai,

             Kottayam to CDRF, Pathanamthitta with price details as on

             26.05.2009.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:

DW1 :         Sleeba Koshy

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

B1     :         Estimate-dated 18.5.09 prepared by opposite party.

B2     :         Copy of the cash bill dated 27.5.09 issued by opposite party to

                    the complainant.

B3     :         Copy of Sale bill dated 19.01.2009 issued from Auto Cat  

                     Services, Kayamkulam.

                                                                                      (By Order)

                                                                                 Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1)  Mrs. Lali Thankachan, Puthuparampil Lincy Bhavan,

                        Kulanada.P.O., Kaipuzha, Pathanamthitta Dist.

       (2)  Manager, S.S.Motors, M.G. Junction, Enathu.P.O., Adoor,

                        Pathanamthitta District.

                 (3)  The Stock File.