1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. P.D. Sivaprasad have filed the complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The contentions of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant had remitted a sum of Rs.500/- before the 1st opposite party in connection with the purchase of the Maruthi Omini LPG. As per the performa invoice the complainant had taken a DD for a sum of Rs.2,70,718/- vide No.634947 dt. 4.1.07 from SBT., Mannar, and entrusted the same with covering letter with the 1st opposite party. The amount was the price of the said vehicle, Road tax; service charge, insurance. At the time of delivery of the said vehicle, on 5.1.2007, in the temporary registration certificate, the hypothecation charge was noted as SBI instead of SBT. For this matter the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.550/- at the time of taking the permanent registration. The insurance amount noted in the performa invoice as Rs.9160/- was different at the time of issuing the certificate. In addition to the above, the amount collected for temporary registration was excess from the actual amount, and the actual value of the vehicle comes only Rs.2,56,909/-. But the DD amount was Rs.2,70,718/- and that the excess amount of Rs.13,809/- was collected by the opposite party. Further it is contended that the opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.14,950/- from the complainant by way of Road Tax and Service Charge. The complainant alleged that he had spent a sum of Rs.6000/- by way of other expenses. Since he has not obtained a positive relief from the opposite parties; he has filed the complaint. 2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed version. In the version the opposite parties have admitted that booking of the vehicle by the complainant. It is stated that the complainant purchased the vehicle from Ernakulam, with temporary registration: which was arranged by the opposite party with the request of the opposite party; and charge was calculated with the cost of the vehicle. The registration in hypothecation details are committed by the registering authority; and complainant was bound to verify the details; and they have collected only the actual amount for insurance from the complainant and denied the collection of Rs.13,809/- in connection with the total value of the vehicle. The opposite party have stated that they are ready to return Rs.14,950/- to the complainant. It is further stated that they have given cash credit and other accessories with Rs.6000/- to the complainant. 3. Considering the rival contentions of the parties this Forum raised the issues:- (1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite Parties? (2) Reliefs and costs. 4. Issue Nos. 1 and 2:- On the side of the complainant he has produced 8 documents and marked as Exts.A1 to A8. Ext.A1 document is the performa invoice dt. 3.1.2007. It shows the actual costs of the vehicle; insurance amount, amount for Road tax and service charge; etc. Ext.A2 is the order booking form, Ext.A3 is the photo copy of the DD., Ext.A4 is the letter dt. 4.1.07 addressed to the opposite party, by the SBT Mananar branch, Branch Manager has requested that the hypothecation may be in favour of SBT., Manager. Ext.A5 is the copy of the insurance cover note. Ext.A6 is the tax disk. Ext.A7 is the Advocate notice and Ext.A8 is the tax vehicle invoice. On a careful reading of the above said documents, it can be seen that the proceedings to deliver the vehicle to the complainant attracts no irregularities. The complainant is bound to verify the insurance cover note and the hypothecation details for ascertaining the correctness at the time of delivery. Regarding the disputed amount of Rs.14,950/- the opposite parties have stated that they are ready to return the said amount which was refused to accept the same earlier by the complainant. On a perusal of the documents given in evidence and depositions and after a detailed hearing; we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is to be dismissed. In the result, we hereby dismissed the complaint with the direction that the complainant can collect the amount for Road tax from the opposite party which was pending before the opposite party. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and complaint dismissed. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2008. Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN: Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH: Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI: APPENDIX:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - P.D. Sivaprasad (Witness) Ext.A1 - Proforma invoice dated 3.1.2007 Ext.A2 - Copy of the order booking form Ext.A3 - Photo copy of the cheque dated 4.1.2007 Ext.A4 - Photo copy of the letter dated 4.1.2007 Ext.A5 - Photo copy of the Certificate cum policy schedule ExtA6 - Photo copy of the tax licence Ext.A7 - Photo copy of the Advocate notice Ext.A8 - Tax/vehicle invoice Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil // True Copy // By Order To Senior Superintendent Complainant/Oppo. Parties/S.F.
