BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C. No. 509/2015 Filed on 27.10.2015
ORDER DATED: 30.11.2020
Complainant:
John D’Cruz.T.C,
Trinity, Athiyannur,
Aralummoodu.P.O.,
Neyyattinkara,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 123.
(Party in person)
Opposite party:
- The Sales Manager,
Perfect Honda,
Pothen Vehicles & Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Toll Jn. Chakai – Kazhakuttom,
Oruvathil kotta, Anayara.P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 029.
(By Adv. V.R.Swaminathan)
- The Manager/Cluster Head,Thiruvananthapuram,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company, Ltd.,
TC. 11/1971 (7),
II nd Floor Mudumbil Towers,
M.G.Road, Plamoodu,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004.
(By Adv. V.Manikuttan Nair)
The order delivered on 30/11/2020
ORDER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 12 of the cp act 1986. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant purchased an Amaze-S car on 24/08/2015 from perfect Honda, Kazhakuttam. They have charged Rs. 6000/- as handling and logistic charges and also charged Rs 35,358/- extra than the retail invoice price from the complainant. Even though the 2nd opposite party has advertised that insurance will be free for the vehicle, but they have collected Rs. 19,435/- from the complainant for the insurance. The complainant have given his old car to the 2nd opposite party as an exchange for which they have agreed an amount of Rs 37,000/- but they have given only Rs 17,000/-. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party for getting 50% reduction in the insurance amount as NCB. But the 1st opposite party rejected his demand stating two objections & one of them was that the complainant shall produce the receipt which they have given at the time of issuing the insurance policy, hence this complaint.
- The Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The 1st opposite party averred that at the time of purchase the 2nd opposite party received Rs.6,000/- as handling charges which are not known to the 1st opposite party. Regarding the issuance of policy there is no direct dealing with the 1st opposite party but it was between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party.
- In order to consider no claim bonus, it is necessary to submit the original cash receipt of policy since it is not directly received from the complainant by the 1st opposite party and NCB certificate with correct period of validity from the previous insurer. The NCB certificate submitted by the complainant shows a correction in the expiry date with ink, hence complaint is not maintainable.
- The 2nd opposite party filed version and averred that the ex-show room price of the car is Rs.6,27,300/- plus free insurance of Rs.19,435/- plus road tax of Rs.50,184, plus fee for handling and logistical charges which is Rs.6,000/- plus extended warranty of Rs.6,900/- plus road side assistance of Rs.4,670/- and accessories is for Rs.8,675. Thus the total cost of the vehicle is Rs.7,23,164/-. The complainant made total payment of Rs.6,79,000+5,806=6,84,806. The 2nd opposite party has given total cash discount of Rs.38,358/- and this include free insurance of Rs.19,435/-. The 2nd opposite party has not made any assurance. Such averments of the complainant is false. The complainant decided to purchase the car being satisfied by the feature of the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party had given total cash discount of Rs.38,358/- and this include free insurance of Rs.19,435/-. The complainant decided to purchase the car being satisfied by the feature of the vehicle.
- The 2nd opposite party have no knowledge about NCB certificate and its validity. The 2nd opposite party issued insurance policy on free of cost and policy certificate also given to the complainant. The other averments in the complaint only to suit the relief claimed in the complainant.
- There is absolutely no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the 2nd opposite party and hence the 2nd opposite party in not liable to the complainant to any extent whatsoever. The complainant is not entitled to be compensated by the 2nd opposite party for any of other act to any extent whatsoever.
- The amount claimed is very exorbitant and the same is without any basis or data. The complainant is not entitled to any other amount as compensation from the 2nd opposite party. Hence the 2nd opposite party seeks dismissal of complaint with cost.
Issues to be ascertained:
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
- Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed chief affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and was examined as PW1. He has produced 12 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P12. Opposite parties 1&2 has filed chief affidavit in-lieu of chief examination, but both of them are not turned up for cross-examination. The complainant & opposite party 2 has filed A/N. It can be seen from Ext P6 that the grand total for the vehicle is Rs. 5,91,942.01/-, but as per Ext P7 the Ex show room price for the vehicle was shown as 6,27,300/-, that shows 2nd opposite party has added an amount of Rs 35,358/- with the grand total. The 2nd opposite party has not given any evidence to show that why they have added Rs 35,358/- with the grand total. In Ext P7 the 2nd opposite party has stated that they have given a discount of Rs. 35,358/- i,e. the extra amount which was received from the complainant was given to the complainant as a discount i.e., (6,27,300-35,358). So actually 2nd opposite party has not given any discount to the complainant as agreed by them. The creation of the impression that something is being given or offered free of charge in spite of the cost of the item actually being covered either fully or partly by the amount charged in the relevant transaction as a whole. In this case 2nd opposite party has deceptively increased the price of the car and made an impression that they are giving some discounts to the vehicle, but actually they have not done that.
- Another thing the complainant alleges is that the 2nd opposite party has agreed to give free insurance. It can be seen from Ext P9 that benefits includes insurance at Re 1. The 2nd opposite party has stated in their version as well as in their chief affidavit that they have given a cash discount of Rs. 35,358/- which includes the free insurance of Rs. 19,435/-. But as already stated the amount which was given as discount was not actually given by the 2nd opposite party. So the 2nd opposite party has not given free insurance to the complainant as agreed by them. Another contention raised by the complainant is that the 2nd opposite party has paid only Rs. 17,000/- as an exchange price for his old vehicle even though they have agreed to give an amount of Rs.37,000/-. On going through Ext P8 it can be seen that the purchase price shown is 17,000+20,000. It can be seen from Ext P7 that the exchange price is only Rs 17,000/-. It is clear from Ext P7 that 2nd opposite party has not given the exchange price which was agreed by them. The 2nd opposite party is legally bound to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant.
- The complainant raised another contention that the 2nd opposite party has charged Rs.6000/- as handling & logistics charges. The 2nd opposite party has admitted this in their version as well as in their chief affidavit. It has become a standard practice of dealers of many vehicle brands sold in the country to charge handling& logistics charges from the customers. But these charges are not a part of the price of the vehicle. They are neither authorized by the manufacturer nor by the Transport department. This collection is not sanctioned by any law even. These charges are illegally collected by the dealers to enrich themselves at the cost of gullible customers. The objection raised by the 1st opposite party regarding the insurance premium receipt is not tenable – 1st opposite party is legally bound to give the insurance premium receipt to the complainant as the dealer had already remitted the insurance premium amount to 1st opposite party & issued 1st opposite party’s policy. Hence the 1st opposite party is directed to give the insurance premium receipt to the complainant. Since the NCB certificate produced by the complainant does not mention the validity period as per Indian motor tariff and also there is a correction in Ext.P4 which was not properly explained by the complaint, hence that prayer can’t be allowed.
- Hence we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is unfair trade practice from the side of 1st and 2nd opposite party.
- In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party 2 is directed to refund an amount of Rs. 35,358/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Eight Only) (the extra amount charged from complainant), Rs.6000/- (Rupees Six Thousand Only) (the amount received for handling & logistics charges), Rs.19,435 (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Five Only) (the amount charged for the insurance), Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) (the amount agreed as exchange price) & pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and also 1st opposite party is directed to give the receipt regarding the Insurance premium to the complainant and pay Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 8% per annum from the date of default till realization.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements is forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 30th day of November, 2020.
Sd/-
P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
VIJU V.R : MEMBER
R
C.C.No.509/2015
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 : John Dcruz.T.C
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 : Copy of the letter dated 07/10/2015.
P2 : Copy of the application dated 07/10/2015.
P3 : Copy of Insurance policy certificate.
P4 : Copy of the NCB Certificate.
P5 : Copy of the RC Book.
P6 : Copy of the retail invoice dated 21/08/2015.
P7 : Copy of the customer account settlement dated
22/08/15.
P8 : Copy of the Delivery receipt.
P9 : Copy of the news paper advertisement dated
20/08/2015.
P10 : Copy of Certificate of insurance cum policy schedule.
P11 : Copy of the News Paper advertisement dated 5/11/2015
P12 : Copy of the Honda care Roadside Assistance Certificate
dated 21/08/2015.
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
R