DOF.22.12.2010
DOO.14.10.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President
Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this, the 14th day of October 2011
CC.303/2010
ManoMohan John Clement,
Omana Villa,
Velayancode Post,
Mandoor Complainant
(Rep. by Adv.M.P.Unnikrishnan)
1. Tata Motors Ld.,
Passemger Car Division,
5th floor, One Forbes,
Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg,
Mumbai 400 023.
2. M/s.KVR Dream Vehicle,
Main Show Room,
Tottada,
Kannur 670 007. Opposite parties
3. Ranjith Nmbiar,
(Product Manager”Vista”
KVR Dream Vehicle Pvt.Ltd.,
Kannur.
4. Suresh Babu,
(Branch In charge,
KVR Dream Vehicle,
Kannur.
(Rep. by Adv.T.P.Sabu for OPs 2 to 4)
O R D E R
Sri.K.Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to return Insurance charges immediately together with compensation of a sum of `1 lakh.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant purchased a car TATA Indica Terra Safire BS4 on 6.11.2010 from the opposite party. He has given quotation for show room price
`3, 61,388. He paid the amount. At the time of taking delivery he has paid an additional cost of `5700. Complainant went to show room and learned that the show room price was `3, 54,461 and insurance `12,050. Opposite party managed to receive insurance charge of `12050 along with show room price that would come to a total figure of `3, 66,511. In the quotation there was special offer of free insurance charge. The show room price is `3, 54,461. Opposite party charged indirectly an additional amount for the insurance. Complainant sent many e-mails to Mr.Ranjit and Suresh Babu for final payment statement but there was no response. Opposite party is liable to return Insurance charges. Hence this complaint.
Pursuant to the notice opposite parties 2 to 4 made appearance and filed version. 1st opposite party remained absent and subsequently declared exparte since they were properly served and acknowledgment returned.
The brief content of the version is as follows: Complainant met 3rd opposite party to purchase a TATA Indica Safire car on 6.11.2011. Opposite party gave him an FIS wherein `3, 61,388 shown as price. The allegation of revised price and payment of `5,700 as additional cost etc. are concocted story. In fact FIS was given for Terra Safire BS3 in gala red colour. After that complainant changed wish and demanded for caven grey colour. The vehicle available in that colour was BS4. 3rd opposite party informed the difference of price between BS4 and BS3. Complainant agreed to take the vehicle TATA Indica Terra Saffire BS4. In fact the amount was paid on 10.11.2010. The opposite parties had given detailed statement at the time of taking delivery. The allegation of cheating by adding insurance charge of `12050 along with show room car price is not true. Actually at that time insurance charge were free as consumer offer. The Insurance amount is calculated by taking only 95% of Ex-show room price as IDV. Ex room price is `3, 66,511 and 95% of `3, 66,511 is `3, 48,585. Therefore there is no merit in the allegation that the price of the vehicle is only `3, 66,511 and illegally collected `12,050. The complainant paid an amount of `4, 01,681. Out of the payment price of the vehicle was `3, 66,511, Tax is `21,990 handling charge is `3500 the price of accessories `9680 etc. But unfortunately the RTO agent to whom the company entrusted by mistakes paid only `21,270 as tax believing that the price of the vehicle is `3, 54,461 and that fact may be reason for the doubt of the complainant. These opposite parties are ready and willing to correct the tax amount paid in the RC book by taking necessary steps. Opposite party contacted them and permitted to pay the balance and thereby collected an amount of 730 and slip also issued. Complainant can paste the same in his RC book to make it perfect.
On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in
the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1 Exts.A1 to A10
Issue Nos.1 to 3
Admittedly complainant purchased TATA INDICA TERRA SAFIRE BS4 on 6.11.2010 from opposite party. Complainant’s case is that the given first information sheet was quoted for `3, 61,388 for the vehicle opted by the complainant. So also road price was quoted as
`3, 86,571. Complainant paid `10,000 as advance on 1.11.2010 and delivery taken on 10.11.2010. But when he went to the show room gain he was shocked to see that instead of `3, 66,557 the amount mentioned as Ex. Show room price was `3, 54,461 and insurance amount `12,050. Complainant further alleges that DV shown was `3, 48,185 whereas show room price charged from this complainant is
`3, 66,511. Complainant also alleged that Ex-room price quoted before the registration authority and declared value before Insurance and actual price charged from the complainant without giving a consolidated receipt proves that the opposite parties have charged excess price to the tune of `12,050. Though there was offering of free insurance opposite party charged the amount in disguised way which is an unfair trade practice.
Opposite party on the other hand contended that the insurance company will take only 95% of the ex show room price as IDV for calculating the insurance amount the reason for which was that for brand new vehicle exceeding 6months not exceeding 1 year they took 5% deprecation from the ex show room price of `3,66,511. That amount comes to `18,326 and deducting the same IDV would be `3, 48,185.
The very crux of the case of the complainant is that opposite party has charged an excess amount of `12,050 as price of the vehicle. His demand is to return insurance charges `12,050 plus compensation. But in the cross examination what did he depose is that “ FXnÀI-£n-IÄ¡v tem¬ hgn-bpT AÃm-sX-bpT sam¯T 4,01,681 cq]-bmWv BsI e`n-¨-sX-¶p-]-dªm icn-bm-Wv. Cu XpI-bn A[n-I-ambn FXnÀI-£n-IÄ Ft¶mSv hm§n-bXp 5700 cq]-bmWv. hml-\T delivery FSp¯ kb-¯mWv5700 cq] FXnÀI-£n-IÄ A[n-IT hm§n-bXp”. Now his case is that excess amount is `5700 . But what he pleaded is thus:“so I demand to return Insurance charges immediately plus a compensation”. He further pleaded referring to excess amount that “ The difference is exactly same amount of insurance charge’. Insurance charge is `12050. The complaint filed to return insurance charge. In cross examination he has also deposed that “Insurance XpI free Bbn-cp-¶p. BbXp I¼-\n-bmWv AS-¨Xp’. If that be so complainant is not entitled to get insurance amount returned. Complainant himself admits that he has enjoyed the benefit of free insurance. Thus there is no base in demanding to return insurance amount. Complainant failed to present his case with sufficient evidence. Hence he is not entitled for any remedy. The issues 1 to 3 are found against complainant.
It is therefore, the complaint stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1. Copy of the insurance certificate cum policy issued by OP
A2 .IDV depreciation schedule
A3. Copy of the E-mail to GM KVR
A4. Copy of the Email to Ranjith
A5. Copy of the E-mail to Mr. Suresh, Head of the branch
A6. E-mail to Suresh
A7. Copy of the first information sheet
A8. Copy of certificate of registration
A9.copy of tax invoice
10. Retail invoice.
Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1.Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite party:
DW1.Suresh Babu
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kannur.
