IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 27th day of December, 2011.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C. No. 126/2011(Filed on 21.05.2011)
Between:
Sunil Jacob,
Chalakuzhiyil House,
Peerumedu P.O.,
Idukki – 685 531.
(Communication Address-
Sunil Jacob,
Chalakuzhiyil House,
Town Ward,
Pathanapuram – 689 695. … Complainant.
And:
1. Sales Manager,
Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Kumbazha P.O.,
Pathanamthitita.
2. Indus Motors C. Pvt. Ltd.,
Opp. Cochin Shipyard,
M.G. Road, Cochin – 15.
(By Adv. T.A. Saviour) … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Shri. N. Premkumar (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The complainant is working as Associate Professor in Catholicate College, Pathanamthitta. He approached the first opposite party for purchasing Maruti WagonR LXi.BS IV car in teachers’ scheme on 31.08.2010. He was given proforma invoice quoting the price at the rate of ` 3,65,741. The first opposite party promised to supply the vehicle after deducting the concession applicable in teachers’ scheme. Complainant paid ` 5,000 as advance on the same date.
3. On 16.09.2010 an amount of ` 3,68,881 was received from the complainant and the vehicle was delivered by the first opposite party. The opposite parties realized an excess amount of ` 3,140 over and above the rate quoted in the proforma invoice. The complainant approached the opposite parties on several times to reimburse the excess amount and the concession amount eligible for under the teachers’ scheme. But they would not resolve the matter.
4. Moreover, a leakage is found on the left side back door top of the vehicle. The said defect has not rectified by the first opposite party even though pointed out in two services. At the time of purchasing the new vehicle, complainant exchanged his used vehicle KL-06B/2998 Maruti 800 car. But till date opposite parties had not transferred the registration from complainant’s ownership though he entrusted signed documents. Hence transfer of registration is incomplete. Complainant approached several times, but opposite parties had not healed the matter. Hence this complaint for getting Rs. 2,000 as teachers’ discount scheme, ` 3,140 as excess amount realized, and Rs. 30,000 as inconvenience and irritation due to the leakage of vehicle. Hence the complainant is entitled to realize a total sum of ` 35,140 from the opposite parties individually and severally. The complainant is also claimed compensation, interest and cost.
5. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. They admit that the complainant booked the vehicle on 31.08.2010 by paying ` 5,000 as advance. According to them, the price of the vehicle is exhibited in their show rooms. The customer can take the price of the vehicle from price list exhibited in the show room. If the customer demands, the opposite parties would issue proforma invoice containing the price of the vehicle. The proforma invoice can be collected by any person even without depositing any amount. When any amount is deposited by the customer, the opposite parties would issue cash receipts. The customer is liable to pay the price of the vehicle prevails on the date of final invoice i.e. on the date of full payment. In this case, the complainant had not enquired any concession or discount is available and he further informed that he has been working as a teacher. There is a discount for the teachers who purchase the vehicle. As per the scheme, the complainant has to produce the documents before the date of final invoicing showing that he is working as teacher and on production of the said documents. The opposite parties would forward the same to the manufacturer. The manufacturer would disburse the discount amount of ` 2,000. All the said facts were intimated to the complainant when he booked the vehicle. But the complainant had not handed over the required documents to the opposite parties in time. Therefore, opposite parties cannot submit the claim in time to the Maruti Suzuki. Opposite parties were unable to pass the benefit to the complainant. This fact was informed by the second opposite party to the complainant.
6. According to opposite parties, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 16.09.2010 on payment of ` 3,68,881. The said amount including Vat, Cess etc. The allegation that an excess amount of ` 3,140 was collected is not correct. Opposite parties collected only the price of vehicle prevailed on the date of final invoice and they cannot collect any excess amount. The price is fixed by Maruti. The complainant had made the payment without any demur or objection.
7. According to them, the complaint regarding the leakage of the left side back door top of the vehicle was attended to and the same was rectified. They also states that the allegation of no transfer documents for the sale transfer of the complainant’s Maruti 800 car is incomplete and thereby a breach of trust on their part is not correct. According to them, there is no omissions, negligence, breach of conditions and unfair trade practice on their dealing. Therefore, they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
8. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs and Costs?
9. Evidence of the complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A9. After closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
10. Points 1 to 3: In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A9. Ext. A1 is the certificate stating that the complainant is working as Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry. Ext. A2 is the proforma invoice of ` 3,65,741 dated 31.08.2010 issued by the opposite parties. Ext. A3 is the order booking form of the receipt of ` 5,000 issued by the opposite parties. Ext. A4 is the copy of temporary certificate of registration issued by Motor Vehicle Department. Ext. A5 is the vehicle data sheet issued by Motor Vehicle Department. Ext. A6 is the insurance policy of the vehicle. Ext. A7 is the sale certificate dated 16.09.2010 issued by the opposite parties. Ext. A8 is the copy of service register by the opposite parties. Ext. A9 is the receipt of accepting the vehicle No. KL-06B/2998 dated 15.09.2010.
11. In order to prove the opposite parties’ contention, first opposite party filed proof affidavit and examined as DW1. Apart from oral evidence, opposite parties had not adduced any documentary evidence.
12. On the basis of the contentions and averments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a vehicle in teachers’ scheme, but the opposite parties denied the concession applicable to teachers’ scheme. Moreover, opposite parties realized excess amount as price of the vehicle, non transfer of his ownership registration of the exchanged vehicle and not to rectify the defect pointed out by complainant in his purchased vehicle. Opposite parties’ contention is that the complainant has not furnished the required documents for getting the discount from the manufacturer. Opposite parties did not collect any excess amount as price as alleged by the complainant. They also rectified the leakage of the vehicle and not delayed the transfer of registration of the exchanged vehicle.
13. It is seen that there is no dispute regarding the vehicle purchased by the complainant. According to complainant, he was denied the benefit of ` 2,000 though he booked the vehicle in teachers’ scheme. Opposite parties’ contention is that the complainant has not submitted the required documents to prove that he has been working as teacher before the final invoicing of the vehicle. Therefore, they cannot forward the documents to the manufacturer for getting the discount. On a perusal of Exts. A3, A4, A5 and A7, it is learnt that the opposite parties having well aware that the complainant has been working as Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry, Catholicate College, Pathanmthitta. That does not mean that the complainant has submitted a required certificate to prove his identity for getting concession from manufacturer through opposite parties. However, it is the boundan duty of opposite parties to forward the required documents to manufacturer for getting the discount to complainant on production of it by the complainant.
14. Another contention of the complainant is that, opposite parties realized excess amount as price. On a perusal of Ext. A2, it is revealed that the price of vehicle is ` 3,65,741. But opposite parties received ` 3,68,881 as price of the vehicle on 16.09. 2010, thereby they realized an excess amount of ` 3,140. According to opposite parties, complainant is liable to pay the price of the vehicle prevailing on the date of final invoice i.e. on the date of full payment. As per terms and conditions as stated in Exts. A2 and A3, the price prevailing at the time of invoicing shall only be applicable. Ext. A3 was .signed and accepted by the complainant. Therefore, he cannot deviate from the terms and conditions in Ext. A3.
15. It is pertinent to note that the date of Ext. A2 is 31.08.2010 and Ext. A7 is 16.09.2010. According to opposite parties, the price of the vehicle has increased from the date of Exts. A2 to A7. The price variation is ` 3,140. According to them, price of the vehicle is exhibited in their show room. But they failed to produce the price list prevailing on the date of Ext. A7 period. Complainant has neither taken any step directing the opposite parties to produce the said price list nor to produce the price list from the company. Even though a shadow of doubt seen on hike in price of vehicle, in the absence of cogent evidence we cannot find that they realized excess amount.
16. With regard to the transfer of ownership registration of exchanged vehicle of complainant, material on record shows that during the pendency of this case, opposite parties transferred the ownership registration. Since this laches is cured and settled, we feel that there is no need to go through this aspect.
17. Another aspect of complainant is that opposite parties failed to rectify the leakage of the left side back door top of the vehicle. According to opposite parties, they rectified the said defect. If at all any defect continues, the same has to be cured.
18. From the above facts and circumstances and the available evidence on record and on the basis of the observations and discussions herein above, we cannot find any deficiency of service against opposite parties. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, this complaint is dismissed with the following directions:
1. The opposite parties are directed to collect the concession of `2,000 from the manufacturer and given to the complaint within 30 days from getting the required documents from the complainant and the complainant is also directed to submit the required documents to the opposite parties within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.
2. Opposite parties are also directed to rectify the leakage of the left side back door top, if any, of the complainant’s vehicle within 7 days from the production of the vehicle by the complainant.
3. There will be no order as to costs.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of December, 2011.
(Sd/-)
N. Premkumar,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Sunil Jacob
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Certificate dated 24.06.2011 issued by the Principal, Catholicate,
College, Pathanamthitta to the complainant.
A2 : Proforma invoice dated 31.08.2010 for ` 3,65,741 issued by the
opposite parties to the complainant.
A3 : Order booking form dated 31.08.2010.
A4 : Temporary Certificate of Registration of the complainant’s vehicle.
A5 : Vehicle data sheet of Motor Vehicles Department dated
15.09.2010.
A6 : Certificate cum policy schedule issued by Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. to the complainant.
A7 : Sale certificate.
A8 : Service register of opposite parties.
A9 : Receipt dated 15.09.2010 issued by the opposite parties to the
complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Prince Raju
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Sunil Jacob, Chalakuzhiyil House, Town Ward,
Pathanapuram – 689 695.
(2) Sales Manager, Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Kumbazha P.O., Pathanamthitita.
(3) Indus Motors C. Pvt. Ltd., Opp. Cochin Shipyard,
M.G. Road, Cochin – 15.
(4) The Stock File.
