Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/156/2019

R Rajaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Marudur Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

20 Apr 2023

ORDER

                                                       Date of Complaint Filed : 06.05.2019

                                                       Date of Reservation      : 11.04.2023

                                                       Date of Order               : 20.04.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                             : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,             :  MEMBER  I 

                   THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,       : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.156/2019

THURSDAY, THE 20^th DAY OF APRIL 2023

R. Rajaram,

No.20, B. Block,

Gangaikaraipuram,

Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai 600 034.                                                                                                                   …Complainant.

..Vs..

The Manager,

Shri Marudur Motor,

Old No.19- New No.39,

G.N. Chetty Road,

Teynampet,

Chennai – 600 006.                                                                                                                      .. Opposite Party.                                                               

* * * * *

Counsel for the Complainant       : Complainant in person

Counsel for Opposite Party         :  M/s. M. Sunil Kumar

         On perusal of records and upon treating the written arguments as oral arguments on endorsement made by the Complainant in person,  we delivered the following:

ORDER

 

Pronounced by  Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

(i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to refund the excess amount of Rs.1,018/- with 24% interest received from the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practice.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant submitted that an excess amount has been recovered as premium towards Insurance of his Vehicle, Auto bearing Registration No. TN-01BH 1648. The said amount was in excess of premium and the Complainant had consistently asked the Opposite Party to refund the excess amount orally by visiting Opposite Party’s Office several times. And yet there has been no response to his request and therefore the Complainant has no positive response till date of filing the complaint. He had issued a notice dated 16.4.2019 and no response to the same. When he visited the Opposite Party who in turn teased him with sarcastic comments. The action of the Opposite Party amounts to unfair and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

II. Written version of Opposite Party in brief is as follows:

2.    The Opposite party submitted that the Complainant approached them for purchase of the vehicle and they after arriving for the best discount that can be given had lastly arrived the total figure of Rs 1,85,000/- in consolidated figure instead of the original amount that was stated to the Complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,98,176/- and had given a sum of Rs. 13,176/-  towards discount. Though they had informed the Complainant a sum of Rs. 9,500/- towards the insurance charges, had lastly after ascertaining the insurance charges had given the discount and reduced the price of the insurance charges in the discount. After having admitted all the total amount, the Complainant had paid the amount in cash. At present the market of the automobile industry is in such a huge crisis system because of introduction of battery vehicles coming in the market and hence what maximum discount that can be given to retain the customer was done and best price was given to the Complainant. They had informed the Vehicle Cost at the rate of Rs. 1,69,670/- and Registration, Road Tax, Road Safety Tax altogether was stated for a sum of Rs 15,250/-. But instead of reducing from the insurance charges amount, the staff seems to have shown the same amount in the insurance charges head and the amount of discount that was stated to the Complainant was adjusted by the staff in the tax head and vehicle cost, thinking that at any circumstances the final amount was derived and finally the final amount that was received as agreed amount of Rs.1,85,000/-. For the said issue, the Complainant approached their office by drinking Alcohol and with few henchmen and even on that occasion, it was explained that altogether discount was shown than adjusting the difference under the insurance charge head. But the Complainant failed to understand the same and issued a Notice, for which, they had replied. All the occasion, the Complainant met only their Manager and only when the notice received, they expressed the billing mistake made by the staff and the Complainant was explained all the aspects. The Complainant has filed the above Complaint by trying to exaggerate the mistake in billing by not deducting under the heads of Insurance and adding under the Registration charges and trying to make the tall claims. But the fact remains that not even a Single Rupee in addition to the amount which was agreed was taken and further huge discount was also given. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

III. The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Written Arguments, Exhibits A-1 to Ex.A-9 were marked on the side of the Complainant.  The Opposite Party had not filed his Written arguments inspite of sufficient opportunity given and the same was closed on 29.11.2022.

IV.  Points for Consideration:-

1.Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party?

2.Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the complaint, and for any other relief/s?

Point No. 1 :-

3.     It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had purchased a Auto bearing Model Bajaj RE compact LPh ES-BSIV from the Opposite Party on 13.02.2019. It is also not in dispute that the agreed price of the said Auto was fixed at Rs.1,85,000/- and the said amount was paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party.

4.     The disputed fact of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party had collected a sum of Rs.9500/-, towards Insurance Policy for the said Auto, whereas from the Insurance Policy provided by the Opposite Party the Policy was taken by paying a premium of Rs.8,482/- amounts to unfair trade practice and a sum of Rs.1018/- is liable to be refunded by the Opposite Party. Inspite of his repeated demands the said amount was not refunded, which constrained him to send a letter dated 16.04.2019 to the Opposite Party claiming the excess amount and on receipt of the said letter a reply dated 22.04.2019 was sent by Opposite Party informing to meet their Managing Director regarding the said issue.

5.     The contention of the Opposite Party is that the original price of the said Auto with Accessories, Insurance etc., was Rs.1,98,176/- and they had a discount of Rs.13,176/- and had agreed to sell at a price of Rs.1,85,000/- and the said amount was paid by cash by the Complainant.

6.     Though they had informed the Complainant a sum of Rs.9500/-towards Insurance charges, had finally ascertained they had given discount in the Insurance charges. But when the tax invoice was raised their staff had adjusted the discount given to the Complainant, in the tax head and in vehicle cost instead of reducing from the Insurance charges.  Hence they had not committed any unfair trade practice, further contended that the Complainant was clearly explained about the said fact of billing mistake made by their staff had not accepted and filed a complaint making tall claims.

7.     On discussions made above and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Opposite Party had collected a sum of Rs.9500/- towards Insurance Policy as found in Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4, and it is also clear from Ex.A-3 only a sum of Rs.8482/- has been paid by the Opposite Party to the Insurance Company towards premium of the subject vehicle. The contention of the Opposite Party that they had given discount overall from the actual price of the subject vehicle and their staff made a mistake while raising tax invoice and mentioned the Insurance amount as Rs.9500/- instead adjusting the discount in the Insurance Charges, is not legally sustainable as the Opposite Party would have informed the actual premium amount to be paid to the Insurance company and should have collected the same. If at all any higher amount collected from the customers towards Insurance Policy, the same has to be refunded. Further it would be clear that the discount could be given on the vehicle alone and not on Insurance Registration charges. Hence from Ex.A-4 it is clear that the Opposite Party had collected an excess amount of Rs.1018/- towards Insurance Policy as evident from Ex.A-3. Further the Opposite Party had failed and neglected to refund the excess amount collected by them, to the Complainant under the guise of their staff had mistakenly mentioned the Insurance amount as Rs.9500/- is not acceptable. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that the negligent act of the Opposite Party clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and hold that the Opposite Party had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service  and thereby  caused mental agony to the Complainant. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2:-     

8.     As discussed and decided in Point No.1 against the Opposite Party the Opposite Party is liable to refund a sum of Rs.1,018/- being the excess amount collected towards Insurance Policy, together with interest @12% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., from 06.05.2019 till the date of realization, also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards unfair trade practice, deficiency of service and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered.

     In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,018/- (Rupees One Thousand and Eighteen Only) being the excess amount collected towards Insurance Policy, together with interest @12% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., from 06.05.2019 till the date of realization, also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards unfair trade practice, deficiency of service and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to the Complainant within 8 weeks from the  date of receipt of this order.  

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 20^th of April 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                           MEMBER I                       PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	09.02.2019	Xerox copy of Invoice from the Opposite Party
Ex.A2	11.02.2019	Xerox copy of Gate Pass
Ex.A3	13.02.2019	Xerox copy of Certificate of Insurance
Ex.A4	13.02.2019	Xerox copy of Invoice
Ex.A5	18.02.2019	Xerox copy of Permit(contract carriage)
Ex.A6	18.02.2019	Xerox copy of Copy of the Registration Certificate
Ex.A7	-	Xerox copy of Licence from the Complainant
Ex.A8	16.04.2019	Xerox copy of Letter from Complainant to the Opposite Party
Ex.A9	22.04.2019	Xerox copy of Reply letter from the Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

-NIL-

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR               B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                      MEMBER I                     PRESIDENT