KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 598/2010
JUDGMENT DATED: 06-04-2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1. Kulathungal Motors,
Toll Junction, Chackai,
Kazhakkuttam.
: APPELLANTS
2. Kulathunkal Motors,
Soorya Buildings,
Thazhevettipuram, Opp. Police Stn.,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv:Sri.Nair Ajay Krishnan & Narayan.R)
Vs.
Syamala Somanathan,
Thanninilkkunnathil Kizhekkethil,
Karakkadu.P.O, Kottamuri,
Mulakkuzha Village, Pathanamthitta.
(R1 by Adv:Sri.Jagadishkumar)
: RESPONDENTS
Abraham Baby,
Tholuparampil House, Mathoor.P.O,
Pathanamthitta.
(R2 by Adv:Sri,Mohan Varghese)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2/dealers in CC.68/08 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.33,740/- with interest at 10% and cost of Rs.1000/-.
2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Tata Spacio Gold Plus vehicle from the appellants and paid a sum of Rs.5,48,000/-. After purchase of the vehicle she came to know that the actual price of the vehicle was Rs.5,11,630/- and that the opposite parties have collected an excess amount of Rs.36,370/-. She has sought for refund of the above amount with compensation and costs.
3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed joint version contending that the show room price of the vehicle was Rs.5,45,370/. In the first invoice issued there was a typographical mistake and hence the amount is shown as Rs.5,11,630/-. Immediately a new invoice was issued with the correct figure of Rs.5,45,370/-. There was no excess collection.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties.
5. It is the case of the complainant that she has paid Rs.5,48,000/-. Ext.A2 is the invoice dated:1/9/2007 wherein the total price of the vehicle is shown as Rs.5,11,630/-. Ext.A2 contains another date also ie 11/8/2007. The above is not been explained by the opposite parties. Ext.A6 is another invoice dated:1/9/2007 wherein the price is shown as Rs.5,40,370/-. Hence as already mentioned the opposite parties have mentioned in the version that the ex-showroom price of the vehicle is Rs.5,45,370/-. As such 3 different amounts are seen as per the documents and version of the opposite parties ie Rs.5,11,630/-, Rs.5,40,370/- and Rs.5,45,370/-. According to the complainant she has remitted Rs.5,48,000/-. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence either documentary or oral to show as to what is the ex-showroom price of the vehicle. The documents issued by the opposite parties to the complainant and the price allegedly collected from the complainant varies and the same has not been properly explained. Even admittedly, the opposite parties have committed mistakes one after another. According to them in Ext.A2 invoice the amount mentioned is a mistake. The amount said to have received as per the version is also a mistake. Nobody was examined at the instance of the opposite parties to clarify the above mistakes. Further no objective evidence was produced to show the actual price of the vehicle. The opposite parties would be in possession of documents that would show the actual amount received from the complainant. The same was also not produced. The Forum has directed to refund the excess amount ie the amount admittedly received and amount mentioned in Ext.A2 which would work out to Rs.32,740/-. In the circumstances we find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum.
6. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The opposite parties are directed to make the payments within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest at 12% from 6/4/2011, the date of this order.
Office will forward the LCR along with copy of this judgment to the Forum.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
VL.
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
