THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.343/2016
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2019
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B. : Member
ORDER
Smt. Rose Jose, Hon’ble President:
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an order directing the opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs.6,477/- illegally collected from him while purchasing a vehicle from them and compensation for the sufferings due to the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party and also the litigation expenses.
Petitioner’s case is that, on 30/06/2016 he had purchased a DATSUN GO T car from the opposite party for Rs.4,50,900/-. But when he calculated the bill amounts paid including the insurance amount, it is found that the amounts comes only Rs.4,44,423/- and thus the opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs.6,477/- from him. When he enquired at the insurance office they told that they have collected only the amount shown in the Insurance Certificate. So he demanded the opposite party to refund the excess amount collected but they are not ready to refund the amount. The said act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and this caused huge financial loss, mental agony and such other hardships to him. Hence this petition seeking reliefs.
The opposite party in their version admitted the purchase of the said vehicle by the petitioner and they had collected Rs.4,50,900/- from the petitioner as total cost of the vehicle including insurance premium amount. It is stated that, thereafter they got a refund of Rs.6,477/- from the Insurance Company and this was to be refunded to the petitioner. But at that time the petitioner wanted to fix a remote lock at the car and so Rs.3,343/- was adjusted towards this from the payable amount of Rs.6,477/- and the balance amount of Rs.2,983/- was due to the petitioner when he took the delivery of the vehicle. Since the delivery was after 5p.m. they told the petitioner that they will pay the amount on the next day or at any time he came for the service of the vehicle. But the petitioner thereafter refused to accept the balance amount of Rs.2,983/- and demanded the full amount of Rs.6,477/- which was not acceptable to them. Hence this petition is filed. They have not adopted any unfair trade practice as alleged and the petitioner has not suffered any financial loss or mental agony or any other hardships due to any of their acts and so he is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the petition and hence prayed to dismiss the petition on accepting their version.
Evidence consists of the affidavits filed by the petitioner and the opposite party, Ext.s A1 to A7 and deposition of PW1.
Admittedly Rs.6,477/- is payable to the petitioner. But according to the opposite party as demanded by the petitioner they fitted a remote lock at the car cost Rs.3,343/- and after adjusting the said amount from the amount of Rs.6,477/- payable to the petitioner, they are ready to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,983/- t the petitioner but he refused to accept the said amount and demanded the full amount of Rs.6,477/- which was not acceptable to them. The petitioner was examined as PW1. In cross the petitioner denied the said contention of the opposite party and stated that the remote lock was an offer of the opposite party. PW1 also denied the statement of the opposite party that they have issued bill for the amount of the remote lock.
According to the opposite party they have issued bill to the petitioner for the amount of the remote lock but he has not produced the same before the Forum which the petitioner denied. So it is for the opposite party to produce the copy of the said bill to prove their said contention. But it was not produced by them also. In this circumstance the said contention of the opposite party is not believable or acceptable. Considering the facts stated, we are of the view that the opposite party ought to have refund the excess amount of Rs.6,477/- to the petitioner and the non-payment of the amount amounts to unfair trade practice on their part.
In the result, the following order is passed.
The opposite party is ordered to refund the excess amount of Rs.6,477/- (Rupees six thousand four hundred seventy seven only) collected from the petitioner along with Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the entire amount will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of default till payment.
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2019
Date of filing: 10/08/2016
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Motor Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule
A2. Copy of receipt issued by RTO, Vadakara
A3. Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party
A4. Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party
A5. Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party
A6. Copy of Bank receipt voucher issued by the opposite party
A7. Copy of invoice issued by the opposite party
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Ismail (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
