BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 85/2002<br /> Dated : 15.07.2008<br /> Complainant: <br /> Shaji. R.S, Shaji Bhavan, Mavila, Kanjiramkulam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> (By adv. J.R. Sanudas)<br /> Opposite party:<br /> The General Manager, Cheran Automobiles, Cape Road, Neeramankara, Karamana P.O, Tvpm - 695 040. <br /> (By adv. S. Ajith)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 02.09.2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken for orders on 30.06.2008, the Forum on 15.07.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA: MEMBER<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had purchased one Hero Honda Passion Black Motor Cycle from the opposite party on 15.11.2001. The vehicle was hypothecated to the Centurion Bank, Thiruvananthapuram who had paid the value of the vehicle Rs. 44356/- directly to the opposite party. At the time of delivery, opposite party collected an amount of Rs. 1250/- from the complainant as the fee for insurance of temporary registration and told the complainant that the receipts for the same will be obtained from Insurance company and RTO. On 17.11.2001, the opposite party gave the Insurance Policy Certificate for which a premium of Rs. 590/- was paid. The complainant demanded the balance amount, but it was not refunded. On 19.11.2001, the complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party before the Sub Inspector of Police, Nemom Police station and as part of settlement, the opposite party issued a receipt for an amount of Rs. 650/-. The miscellaneous bill was not numbered and was shown as incidental charges without any details. As the opposite party had told that the price of the vehicle was inclusive of all incidental charges, the opposite party is not entitled to collect such an amount. Hence this complaint. <br /> The opposite party had filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The purchase of the vehicle and payment is admitted. The price of the vehicle is exclusive of insurance and registration charges. The opposite party collects an amount of Rs. 650/- from all the customers for the purpose of registration and handling charges which has been fixed by the Dealers Association. There is absolutely no illegality or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in this regard. There is no provision in any law which prescribes that a dealer should charge a particular amount alone as handling charges. The opposite party never informed the complainant that the price of the vehicle is inclusive of all charges. Before the S.I of police, the opposite party issued the receipt for Rs. 650/- since the complainant insisted for a receipt. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P5. There is no evidence on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has not been cross-examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are;<br /> (i)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party leading to unfair trade practice?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?<br /> <br /> Point(i):- There is no dispute with regard to the purchase of the bike and payment of Rs. 44356/- by the complainant to the opposite party towards the price of the bike. The main allegation of the complainant is that, at the time of delivery of the vehicle, the opposite party had collected an amount of Rs. 1250/- towards insurance and temporary registration for which though receipt was not issued on that day itself, the opposite party issued an Insurance Policy Certificate on 17.11.2001. The complainant has been issued the said certificate for the payment of a premium of Rs. 590/- only and hence the complainant claimed the refund of Rs. 650/-. The opposite party alleges that the amount of Rs. 650/- is the charge collected towards handling charge of the dealer fixed by the Dealers Association. Admittedly the opposite party has received Rs. 1250/- from the complainant. Point to be looked into is what prevented the opposite party from issuing a receipt for the amount received by them from the customer. The act of non-issuance of the receipt had forced the complainant to approach the Police Station and the opposite party issued a receipt for the said amount only at that time. The further allegation of the complainant is that the price of the vehicle is inclusive of all handling charge and that Rs. 650/- has been collected from him in excess. The opposite party contends that this amount of Rs. 650/- is the handling charges of the dealer fixed by the Dealers Association which has not been supported by any documents. This is only a contention raised by the opposite party in their version and not corroborated by any evidence. The complainant has sworn that the price of the vehicle is inclusive of all handling charges. The complainant has not been cross-examined and his sworn statement stands unchallenged. Moreover, the opposite party has not produced any documents to prove otherwise. The non-issuance of the receipt in time and mistake in the Ext. P1 invoice, wherein the name of the complainant has not been correctly typed would go to show the callous attitude of the opposite party towards the customer. From the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and the negligent act of the opposite party has caused loss and sufferings to the complainant for which the complainant has to be compensated. <br /> <br /> Point (ii):- The complainant has succeeded to establish his complaint and hence the complainant is found entitled for the refund of Rs. 650/- only claimed by him. The complainant has to be compensated for the sufferings he had underwent for which this Forum finds an amount of Rs. 1000/- as appropriate. <br /> <br /> In the result, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 650/- along with an amount of Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- towards costs to the complainant within a period of one month failing which Rs. 650/- shall carry interest at 12% from the date of the order. <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th July 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No.85/2002<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Original of Vehicle Cash Bill of Cheran Automobiles dated 15.11.2001 for Rs. 44356/-. <br /> <br /> P2 - Original of Certificate-Cum-Policy schedule No. 14927/02 of Oriental Insurance Company.<br /> <br /> P3 - Original of Miscellaneous bill dated 21.11.01 for Rs. 650/-.<br /> <br /> P4 - Original of reply notice of Cheran Automobiles dated 26.12.2001.<br /> <br /> P5 - Copy of suit notice dated 14.12.2001.<br /> <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />