BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 305/2005 Filed on 25.08.2005

Dated : 15.09.2009

Complainant:

K. Krishnan, Kasthuri, K.P 8-472, Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. A.S. Nazimudeen)

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd., 11^th Floor, Jeevan Prakash-25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.

    

2. The General Manager, Indus Motors Co. Ltd., M.G. Road, Thevara, Kochi- 682 015.

    

3. The Manager, Indus Motors Co. Ltd., Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Biju M. John & S. Reghukumar)

This O.P having been taken as heard on 17.08.2009, the Forum on 15.09.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The facts of the case are as follows: As per the proforma invoice given to the complainant, the cost of the Zen VXI Model car is shown as Rs. 3,99,314/-. The cost of insurance comes to Rs. 13,126/-, the road tax & registration fee and extended warranty comes to Rs. 18,850/- and 1,450/- respectively. Thus the total cost of the vehicle as per proforma invoice dated 24.07.2004 is Rs. 4,32,740/-. The case of the complainant is that on 23.08.2004, as per newspaper reports, the price of the vehicle has been slashed down by Rs. 9,000/-. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 25.08.2004. The complainant paid total amount of Rs. 4,21,500/- for taking delivery of the vehicle. On a perusal of the invoice dated 24.08.2004 the complainant noticed that though a total amount of Rs. 4,21,500/- was collected from the complainant, an amount of Rs. 3,99,314/- alone is accounted towards the price of the vehicle and Rs. 22,186/- is seen accounted towards road tax and extended warranty. From the invoice it is also explicit that the price collected at Rs. 3,99,314/- covers the price of accessories supplied and sale tax. On further enquiry the complainant understood that there was a decrease in price at Rs. 12,462/- for the model Zen VXI model. In other words the ruling price of the model purchased was only Rs. 3,86,852/-. The complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant on several times. In spite of an earnest effort made to get it refund, the opposite parties did not honour the commitment of the company so far. Hence this complaint.

The 1^st opposite party, the Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd. filed their version contending the case. The 1^st opposite party states that there was no contract for sale of vehicle between the complainant and 1^st opposite party. The complainant neither paid any amount to the 1^st opposite party for purchase of vehicle nor the complainant had any transaction relating to the sale of the vehicle in question with the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party sells the vehicles to its dealers on a price prevailing at the date of invoicing. It is the prerogative of the 1^st opposite party to decide the price of its products. In so far as sale of vehicle to the individual customer is concerned, it is the dealer and that individual customer has to settle the terms and conditions of sale including the price of vehicle, date of delivery etc. The sale of vehicle, therefore, depend upon specific conditions of agreement for sale as entered into between the complainant and selling dealer. The 1^st opposite party states that the company was not bound to honour any alleged commitment with the complainant.

The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties' main contentions in the version are that these opposite parties had not collected excess amount from the complainant. They admitted that the price of the vehicle and the insurance amount till 2^nd August 2004 had been changed and the new scheme was introduced from 23^rd August to 31^st August 2004. The opposite parties stated the details as below:

Old price upto 22^nd August New price from 23^rd August to 31 August

Vehicle Cost - 399314 386852

Insurance - 13126 12738

-------------- ------------

4,12,440 3,99,590/-

======= =======

Old Scheme till 22^nd August New price from 23^rd August to 31 August

Free Insurance - 13126 Price difference - 12462

Accessories given - 13239/- Insu 50% of 12738 - 6369

----------- ------------

Total 26,365/- 18,831/-

======= =======

As per the opposite parties the complainant has enjoyed the benefit of Rs. 7,534/-. If the complainant had purchased the vehicle after the price decrease he would have got only the above mentioned 50% insurance and price difference as offered and he would have lost the gain Rs. 7,534/-. And therefore these opposite parties had given the best deal, which is beneficial to the complainant with a view to keep good customer relationship. The opposite parties deny the allegation that the opposite parties have collected excess amount of Rs. 12,412/- from the complainant. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

In this case complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he has been examined as PW1. From his side 5 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. 1^st opposite party has also filed affidavit along with a document. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have submitted that they have no evidence.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Reliefs and costs.

Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the complainant has been examined as PW1 and the opposite parties cross examined him. From the complainant's side 5 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 is the proforma invoice dated 24.07.2004. The on road price quoted in Ext. P1 by the 3^rd opposite party is Rs. 4,32,740/-. As per this document Ex Showroom price is Rs. 3,99,314, insurance amount is 13,126/-, road tax and registration fee is 18,850/- and extended warranty is 1,450/-. In the proforma invoice three conditions are stated. First and second conditions are (1) price quoted above is current and subject to change without notice (2) price prevailing at the time of invoicing shall only be applicable. The opposite parties have no objection on these points. Ext. P2 is the copies of paper cuttings of Malayala Manorama and Hindu in which the news published that the price of the vehicle Zen have been slashed down by around Rs. 9,000/-. Ext. P3 is the invoice No. 5965 dated 24.08.2004. As per this document the complainant had to remit Rs. 4,21,500/- to the 3^rd opposite party. Ext. P4 is the copy of the delivery receipt dated 25.08.2004. Ext. P5 is the copy of tele fax dated 16.09.2004 issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant. The copy of this document has been produced by the 1^st opposite party also along with their version.

We have carefully examined all the pleadings, documents and evidence of both sides. The opposite parties agreed that the price prevailing at the time of invoicing shall only be applicable (Ext. P1) In this case we have also taken that view for deciding the case. The date of invoice is 24.08.2004(Ext. P3). As per Ext. P5 the price of the vehicle on that date was Rs. 3,99,590/- including insurance. The opposite parties have argued that at that time they offered 50% insurance off. Accordingly the complainant would have to pay Rs. 3,99590-Rs. 6,369/- = Rs. 3,92,221/-. But the opposite parties charged Rs. 3,99,314/- from the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 3,99,314 – Rs. 3,99,221= Rs. 7,093/- from the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, the excess amount collected by them from the complainant. In this case opposite parties argued that they have given accessories for Rs. 13,239/- as free. But they have no evidence to prove that contention and moreover the complainant never demanded free accessories from the opposite parties. In Ext. P5 document the opposite parties stated that they have given accessories for Rs. 13,239/-, but the opposite parties charged Rs. 407.88 for accessories as per Ext. P3. At the time of cross examination the 1^st opposite party asked the complainant that “Standard Zen VXI- ല്‍ എന്തൊക്കെയുണ്ട് accessories എന്ന് അറിയാമോ? (Q) എനിക്ക് free accessories ഒന്നും കിട്ടിയിട്ടില്ല. In this case the opposite parties have failed to prove that they have given the accessories free of cost. From the above mentioned discussions we are of the view that there is unfair trade practice from the side of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, that they have not given the vehicle at the price prevailing at the time of invoicing. Hence the complaint is partly allowed.

In the result, the opposite parties 2 & 3 are directed to refund Rs. 7,093/- with 12% annual interest from 24.08.2004 till the date of realization and shall pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall also be paid to the entire amount till the date of realization. 1^st opposite party is exempted from any liability.

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.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of September 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 305/2005

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - K. Krishnan

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Proforma invoice (Original) dated 24.07.2004.

P2 - Copy of paper cuttings of Malayala Manorama & Hindu.

P3 - Invoice (Original) No. 5965 dated 24.08.2004

P4 - Copy of delivery receipt dated 25.08.2004

P5 - Copy of tele fax dated 16.09.2004 issued by the 3^rd

opposite party to the complainant.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT