Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

229/2010

G.Sujatha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, M.P.L Cars Pvt.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

04 Jun 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 13.05.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 04.06.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                  : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                              : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.229 /2010

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 04^th DAY OF JUNE 2018

                                 

G. Sujatha,

W/o. Mr. V.S. Gopalan,

No.1, Sai Villa Sabari Street,

Chitlapakkam,

Chennai – 600 064.                                             .. Complainant.                                                  ..Versus..

 

The General Manager,

M.P.L. Cars Pvt. Ltd.,

Opposite to Y.M.C.A.,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.                                           ..  Opposite party.

          

For complainant                    :  Party in person

Counsel for opposite party   :  M/s. M.P. Mohandass & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to return a sum of Rs.16,150/- with normal interest, to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental torture, mental agony, anxiety, humiliation and unfair trade practice with cost of Rs.7,500/-

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that she purchased a Ford Figo Car from the opposite party who is the dealer of M/s. MPL Cars Pvt. Ltd.  The complainant submits that the price of the car as per the Proforma Invoice issued by the opposite party is Rs.5,69,493/-. The complainant approached M/s. State Bank of Hyderabad, Adayar Branch and availed loan for a sum of Rs.4,84,000/- and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.85,493/- towards initial payment.  The EMI fixed by the bank is Rs.8,415/- for 84 months.  The opposite party also after receiving the amount of Rs.5,69,493/- delivered the new car bearing Registration No.TN 22 BT 2694 during the month of April 2010.   When the complainant checked up the papers like invoice, Registration Certificate, Insurance, Life Tax etc supplied by the opposite party, she noticed that as per the invoice dated:21.04.2010 a sum of Rs.4,96,900/- alone is the total cost of the vehicle.  Further the complainant submits that the details regarding Registration,  Insurance, Life Tax reflected in the invoice is found missing in invoice  which amounts to unfair trade practice.  When the complainant contacted the RTO, Tambaram she came to know that the Registration Fees and Life Tax is Rs.41,660/- and insurance amount  is Rs.14,971/-.  Further the complainant submits that, the insurance certificate shows an amount of Rs.14,971/- alone as the premium for the insuring vehicle. Hence the complainant sent letters dated:26.04.2010 & 30.04.2010 to the opposite party.  But opposite party neither replied nor come forward to settle the complainant’s claim.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that the complainant accepted the terms and conditions of the Proforma Invoice dated 17.03.2010 and agreed to purchase the Ford Figo car for a sum of Rs.5,69,493/-.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that, the price mentioned in the proforma Invoice dated:17.03.2010 is Rs.4,96,900/- excluding the charges including the driver hire for registration purposes, the mediator authorised by the opposite party, fuel expenses to drive the vehicle from Yard to Workshop for  delivery inspection and again to showroom from showroom to registering authority and again to showroom for accessories and pigments and again to workshop for polish and to showroom finally ready for delivery for the customers.   Further the opposite party states that on 21.04.2010, the opposite party issued the details of charges with proper explanation to the complainant.   Further the opposite party states that, all the charges are reasonable and genuine.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that, the details of ledger account shows the amount of the vehicle and expenses.    Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 are filed and marked on the side of the opposite party. 4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get return of a sum of Rs.16,150/-  with interest as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with cost of Rs.7,500/- as prayed for?

5.     On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   Heard the opposite party’s Counsel also.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Ford Figo Car from the opposite party who is the dealer of M/s. MPL Cars Pvt. Ltd.  The complainant pleaded and contended that the price of the car as per the Proforma Invoice issued by the opposite party vide Ex.A2 is Rs.5,69,493/- i.e. Ex-show room price Rs.4,96,900/- Registration, Life tax and EW is Rs.53,122/-, Insurance Rs.14,971/- and Essential Pack & 3 M Exterior is Rs.4,500/-.    The complainant approached M/s. State Bank of Hyderabad, Adayar Branch and availed loan for a sum of Rs.4,84,000/- and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.85,493/- towards initial payment the EMI  fixed by the bank is Rs.8,415/- for 84 months is not denied.  The opposite party also after receiving the amount of Rs.5,69,493/- delivered the new car bearing Registration No.TN 22 BT 2694 during the month of April 2010.   When the complainant checked up the papers like invoice, Registration Certificate, Insurance, Life Tax etc supplied by the opposite party, she noticed that as per the invoice dated:21.04.2010 vide Ex.A3 a sum of Rs.4,96,900/- alone is the total cost of the vehicle i.e. price of Ford Figo car is Rs.441688/- Value Added Tax @ 12.50% is Rs.55,211/- Total (Debit / Credit) is Rs.4,96,900/-. 

6.     Further the contention the complainant is that the details regarding Registration,  Insurance, Life Tax reflected in the invoice Ex.A2 is found missing in Ex.A3 invoice  which amounts to unfair trade practice.  When the complainant contacted the RTO, Tambaram she came to know that the Registration Fees and Life Tax is Rs.41,660/- and insurance amount  is Rs.14,971/-.  Thereby, the opposite party without reason collected a sum of Rs.16,150/- in excess without disclosing and without any receipt proves the unfair trade practice exercised by the opposite party.  Further the contention of the complainant is that, Ex.A7 insurance certificate shows an amount of Rs.14,971/- alone as the premium for the insuring vehicle.   The opposite party has not disputed the Registration Fee and Life Tax which amounts to Rs.41,660/-.  But the opposite party is claiming some amount towards transportation, registration, fuelling and exterior polish etc.   But the opposite party has not produced any record for such expenses.   

 7.    The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant  accepted the terms and conditions of the Proforma Invoice dated 17.03.2010 and agreed to purchase the Ford Figo car for a sum of Rs.5,69,493/-.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A2 Proforma Invoice, it is seen that price subject to change without notice and that prevalent at the time of actual delivery will alone be acceptable payment; proves that without notice and receipt, the opposite party cannot receive any amount from the customers.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that, the price mentioned in the proforma Invoice dated:17.03.2010 is Rs.4,96,900/- excluding the charges towards the driver hire for registration purposes, the mediator authorised by the opposite party, fuel expenses to drive the vehicle from Yard to Workshop for  delivery inspection and again to showroom from showroom to registering authority and again to showroom, for accessories and pigments and again to workshop for polish and to showroom finally ready for delivery for the customers.   But none of the factors, explained at the time of purchase of the car either orally or in written or even through the proforma Invoice.  The opposite party also has not issued any receipt for such expenditure in order to collect the amount from the customers who are purchasing the car.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that on 21.04.2010, the opposite party issued the details of charges with proper explanation to the complainant as per Ex.B4.  But the opposite party has not explained why such break up figures has not been given at the time of booking the car or purchasing the car or issuing invoice amounts to deficiency in service. 

8.     Further the contention of the opposite party is that, all the charges are reasonable and genuine.   But it is apparently clear that, mediator appointed for registration purpose is an imaginary one and it is the duty of the opposite party to deliver the vehicle after due registration with full insurance.  Without issuing any receipt, collecting lump sum amount towards petty things in order to deliver the vehicle cannot be permitted which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that as per Ex.B7, the details of ledger account showing the amount will prove the price of the vehicle and expenses.   But the opposite party has not produced any counter foil or receipts for such expenditure incurred towards the purchase of the vehicle.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.16,150/- with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party  is directed to refund a sum of Rs.16,150/- (Rupees sixteen thousand one hundred and fifty only) being the excess amount collected and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 04^th day of June 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of Bank’s sanction ticket
		Copy of Proforma Invoice by the dealer
		Copy of Invoice from the dealer
		Copy of Registration Certificate
		Copy of letter to the opposite party by the complainant
		Copy of letter to the opposite party by the complainant
		Copy of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd Certificate Cum Policy Schedule

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.B1	17.03.2010	Copy of Proforma Invoice issued by the opposite party
Ex.B2	30.03.2010	Copy of Arrangement letter by the State Bank of Hyderabad
Ex.B3	21.04.2010	Copy of Invoice issued by the opposite party
Ex.B4	21.04.2010	Copy of vehicle price particulars issued by the opposite party
Ex.B5	26.04.2010	Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.B6	30.04.2010	Copy of letter sent by the complainant’s husband to the opposite party
Ex.B7	10.05.2010	Copy of letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant with documents.
Ex.B8	12.05.2010	Copy of acknowledgement from the complainant
Ex.B9	13.07.2010	Copy of letter sent by the complainant’s husband to the opposite party

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT