Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows.  The complainant purchased a Renault Lodgy RXL 110PS 8S moonlight vehicle from the from the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.9,60,321/- including a registration and service charge Rs.150/-, insurance amount of Rs. 37,084/-, accessories price of Rs. 5,764/- and road tax of Rs. 68,320/-.  After the purchase of the vehicle the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party RTO, Adoor for the registration of the vehicle, the 2^nd opposite party insisted to remit an additional amount of Rs. 37,501/- for the registration. The complainant remitted the above said amount of Rs. 37,501/- with objection for the said registration.  According to the complainant the additional remittance of the above said amount Rs. 37,501/- was against the assurance given by the 1^st opposite party and there by 1^st opposite party is also liable to return the excess amount of the complainant.  The act of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service as such the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the excess amount, compensation and cost etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance. The opposite parties are entered appearance and filed their version as follows.  Version of 1^st opposite party is as follows.  According to this opposite party the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is contented that the complainant herein is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and no deficiency in service happened on the part of this opposite party.  The complaint is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The opposite parties again contended that the price fixed by the manufacturer is for the purpose of sale as such the price of the vehicle was Rs. 8,49,000/-.  It is contended that when the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for vehicle registration it is happened that a mistaken invoice which was generated from the manufacturer’s Dealer Management System(DMS) was issued to the complainant as a clerical mistake, instead of relying upon the correct invoice which was issued to the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party wrongly relied upon the wrong invoice for calculating the value of vehicle and the compliant was compelled to pay a higher value amount for the said registration.  The delay caused for the registration of the vehicle was so caused not by the act of the 1^st opposite party.  It is further contended that the price of the vehicle was Rs, 8,49,000/- and the complainant is liable to pay the tax to 2^nd opposite party on the basis of this amount.  Therefore, the 1^st opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint against him with cost.

                   4. The 2^nd opposite party also filed a version as follows:  According to 2^nd opposite party the complainant produced an application for new registration of newly purchased RENAULT LODGY DCI RXL – JSRKF7 (8 seated) vehicle which was manufactured by Renault Nissan Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.  It is admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle from 1^st opposite party as the dealer of the said vehicle.  The vat rate is shown as 14.5% and the amount collected is only @ 11.7%.  It is further contended that the complainant paid a tax amount Rs. 67,920/- by the way of e-payment the said tax amount is 8% of the total price of the vehicle, i.e. Rs.84,900/-.  It is further stated that the discount or rebate given by the dealer to registered owner shall not be deducted from the bill amount for calculating the purchase value.  According to 2^nd opposite party they collected actual tax due to Motor Vehicles Department as per norms, directions and standing orders prevailed in the department.  There is no deficiency in service on their part hence they also prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

                  5. We peruse the complaint version and records before us and framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

              6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he is examined as PW1 and marked Ext. A1 to A4.  Ext. A1 is the customer order form dated: 25/04/2016.  Ext. A2 is the photocopy of temporary registration certificate dated: 09/05/2016.  Ext. A3 is the details of price of vehicle.  Ext. A4 is the TR5(c) dated: 09/05/2016 sent by the 2^nd opposite party.   On the other side 1^st opposite party filed a proof affidavit and examined him as DW1.  Through DW1 Ext.B1 is also marked.  Ext. B1 is the list of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party.  Though the 2^nd opposite party filed version in this case neither 2^nd opposite party cross-examined PW1 or adduce any evidence in their favour at the time of trial.  After the conclusion of the trail we heard the complainant and 1^st opposite party.

             7. Point No.1:  When we peruse the version of 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party it is clear that both these opposite parties contended that the case is not maintainable on ground that the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the suit is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties.  It is clear that the complainant herein purchased the vehicle from 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of             Rs. 8,49,000.  So it is clear that the complainant paid a consideration to 1^st opposite party for his vehicle and it also proves that the 2^nd opposite party accepted an amount of Rs.37,501/- as additional amount for the registration of the new vehicle.  On the basis of the above evidence of payment of consideration for the vehicle and registration this complainant can be treated as a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act 1986 and 1^st opposite party  and 2^nd opposite party  are service providers of the complainant.  It is true that the 1^st opposite party contended that the complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties since the manufacturer of the vehicle has not been made a party for the proceedings.  Though the 1^st opposite party raise this objection before the Forum it is come out in the evidence to see that the price amount Rs.8,49,000/- was fixed by the manufacturer and on the same price the vehicle was transferred to the complainant.  This fact is admitted by 1^st opposite party even in his version.  Considering all these facts we are safely come to a conclusion to the effect that the case against the opposite parties are maintainable before this Forum and it is also finds that the complainant is a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the contention of non-jointer of necessary parties are also not sustainable in view of the above discussion.  Hence Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.

               8. Point Nos. 2 and 3:   For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  The next issue to be considered is whether any of the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.  As discussed earlier in order to prove the ownership of the vehicle and for proving price of the vehicle the complainant PW1 marked Ext.A1 and A2.  The Ext.A1 shows that the price of the vehicle (X showroom) is Rs. 8,49,000/- and a service charge for registration of Rs.150 and an insurance charge Rs. 37,084/- are also collected from PW1.  It is also seen that an amount of Rs. 5,767/- is collected for accessory values and for other expenses Rs. 68,320/- is also seen collected.  The said document is a customer order form which was issued on 25/04/2016 in favour of the complainant.  The Ext.A2 document proves the temporary registration of the vehicle by the Motor Vehicle Department at the time of registration.  It is true that when we refer Ext.A3 the price details issued by 1^st opposite party on 29/04/2016, the price of the vehicle is shown as Rs.9,20,710/-.  It is seen that as per Ext. A3 there is a dealer discount Rs.1,79,225.28 can be seen and the showroom price of the said vehicle is stated as Rs.8,49,000/-.  It is true that when we refer Ext.A4 the tax details which was issued by RTO, Adoor dated: 09/05/2016 it shows that an amount of Rs.68,320/- was paid by PW1 as the tax of the vehicle.  The 2^nd opposite party filed a version and stated that the unit price of the vehicle is Rs. 9,20,710/-.  It is true that as per Ext.A3 the unit price of the vehicle is also the same.  But it is to be noted that the showroom price of the vehicle is seen as Rs. 8,49,000/- as per Ext.A3.  The 2^nd opposite party contended that as per motor vehicle taxation act ‘purchase value’ means the value of the vehicle as shown in the purchase invoice and including value added taxes and customers/excise duty charges.  Though the 2^nd opposite party contended this fact nothing brought out to convince the Forum with regard to this contention.  It is also to be noted that though the 2^nd opposite party filed a version as stated above 2^nd opposite party failed to cross-examine PW1 in this case.  Therefore, the deposition of PW1 in chief examination has to be considered as unchallengeable as far as 2^nd opposite party is concerned.  It is to be further noted that the complainant and 1^st opposite party jointly pleaded that the showroom price of the vehicle has to be considered for the taxation purpose of the vehicle.  As discussed earlier 2^nd opposite party has not adduced any positive evidence to substantiate their contention.

            9. In the light of the above evidence we would have to rely the contention raised by the complainant and 1^st opposite party with regard to the taxable amount of the vehicle.  As per the version of 2^nd opposite party the complainant paid a road tax of Rs. 67,920/- by e-payment for the vehicle.  When we peruse the cross-examination of PW1 it reveals “വാഹനത്തിൻറെ  permanent registration ആയി ഈ വാഹനം  OP2 പക്കൽ കൊണ്ടു ചെന്നപ്പോള് ഒരു തെറ്റായ  invoice ൻറെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ  Ext. A3 ൽ കാണിച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന വിലയേക്കാൾ കൂടുതലായ വിലയിൽ അല്ലെ  road tax അടപ്പിച്ചത് . (A) അതെ. (Q) നിങ്ങൾ Ext.A3 document RTO ൽ ഹാജരാക്കിയിരുന്നില്ലേ. (A) ഹാജരാക്കിയിരുന്നു. എന്നിട്ടും കൂടുതൽ  tax  ആയി  Rs.37,501/- ഈടാക്കി. OP1 അടച്ച  road tax Rs. 68,320/- ആണ്.   In the light of the deposition of PW1 in-cross and the contents of Ext.A4 it is clear that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 68,320/- as the tax of this vehicle.  If so the next question to be considered is whether the excess payment Rs. 37,501/- which was pleaded by PW1 in this case is justifiable or not.  It is come out in evidence to see that the complainant PW1 remitted an excess amount of Rs. 37,501/- for the payment of road tax.  This fact is not opposed by opposite party 2 in their version.

           10.  As discussed above, it is to be noted that the opposite party calculated the road tax of the vehicle on the basis of its unit price as Rs. 9,20,710/-.  The 2^nd opposite party also admitted this fact through their version.  We don’t think that the opposite party has got any right to fix the unit price of the vehicle as Rs.9,20,710/-.  The opposite party is ought to see and comply the value of the vehicle as per Ext. A3.  It is evident to see that the showroom price of the vehicle is Rs. 8,49,000/- on the date of purchase.  Anyway for the purpose of calculating the tax the 2^nd opposite party has to calculate the same in accordance with Ext. A3.  It is also come out in evidence to see that the 2^nd opposite party demanded the excess tax amount Rs. 37,501/- for the registration of the vehicle apart from the e-mail payment Rs. 67,920/- by the complainant (Ext.A4).  On the basis of the above discussion we can easily inferred that the 2^nd opposite party failed to convince this Forum with regard to the excess payment Rs. 37,501/- by way of an additional collection for the purpose of final registration of the vehicle.  It is also found that though the complainant alleged deficiency in service against 1^st opposite party nothing proved against him.  Hence 1^st opposite party is exonerated from all charges.  As discussed earlier, we find that the 2^nd opposite party is committed deficiency in service against the complainant by calculating the price of the vehicle without considering the details of showroom price seen in Ext. A3.  Therefore 2^nd opposite party is liable to the complainant and we find deficiency in service against 2^nd opposite party.  Hence Point No.2 and 3 are also found against 2^nd opposite party alone.

                   In the result, we pass the following orders.

1. The 2^nd opposite party is here by directed to refund the excess payment Rs. 37,501/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand Five hundred and one only) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order or else the complainant is at liberty to realize the amount with 10% interest from the date of the order onwards.

2. Considering the circumstances and nature of the case there is   

  no order for compensation.

3. A cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) is also allowed to the complainant from 2^nd opposite party with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards. 

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of April, 2017.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                          (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)                      :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Sambasivan.P.R

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Customer order form dated: 25/04/2016.

A2 :  Photocopy of temporary registration certificate dated: 09/05/2016.

A3 :  Details of price of vehicle.

A4 : TR5(c) dated : 09/05/2016 sent by the 2^nd opposite party.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :   Ratish Kumar

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

B1  : List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party.

                                                                                               (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) P.R.Sambasivan, Kinaruvilayil,  Mudiyoorkonam.P.O,

                    Pandalam,

(2) Manager, T.V Sundaram Iyyengar & Sons Ltd.,

     Kunnathu Building, St. Peter’s Junction,

     Pathanamthitta.

(3) Joint Regional Transport Officer, Adoor.

(4) The Stock File.