By Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P.S, President:
This is complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant purchased a Hyundai Car from the show room of the Opposite Party on 13.12.2017 for a price of Rs.5,27,605/-. The Opposite Party arranged finance from HDFC Calicut. Thereafter, Opposite Party produced the vehicle before Sub Regional Transport Office Sulthan Bathery for registration with documents which contain that the value of vehicle is Rs. 4,97,179/- . Therefore there is a difference of Rs. 30,426/- between the amount noted in the bill issued to the Complainant and the bill submitted for registration. The Opposite Party submitted the same bill for Rs.4,97,179/- to the insurance company also for taking insurance policy. Then, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party to know the reason for this difference and at that time the Opposite Party agreed to refund the excess amount collected from him. But, they have not refunded the same till today. This attitude of the Opposite Party is deficiency in their service. Hence, this complaint to get Rs. 30,426/- with 12 % interest, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation with cost.
3. The Opposite Party filed version contenting as follows:-
They admitted that the ex-show room price of the vehicle purchased by the Complainant is Rs.5,27,605/-. The Complainant never paid any amount directly to Opposite Party. He has utilized the loan of Rs.4,70,991/- and Rs.1,45,000/- which has been obtained by him at the time of exchanging his vehicle. The invoice was prepared after deducting the cash discount and exchange bonus from ex-show room price of Rs. 5,27,605/- which amount to Rs. 4,70,991/-. Accordingly road tax was calculated and paid up on the price of Rs. 4,70,991/-. But, thereafter, Sub Regional transport Officer issued a notice to the Opposite Party demanding to pay the road tax on Rs.5,27,605/- which is the amount without considering the discount and actual payment. Subsequently, this Opposite Party paid an amount of Rs.12,377/- towards balance road tax as assessed by Sub Regional Rural Transport Officer. Therefore, the Opposite Party bound to refund only Rs.311/- to the Complainant who was not ready to receive the same. This facts are well known to the Complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in there service. The purpose of the complainant is to grab money by misusing the invoice given only for the purpose of loan. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleading, points to be considered are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite
Party?
2. Reliefs and cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1, OPW1, Ext.A1, A2, B1 and B2. Both sides heard.
6. Point No.1:- No dispute that the Complainant purchased a Hyundai car on 13.12.2017 from the show room of Opposite Party. There is also no dispute that he has obtained discount as alleged by the Opposite Party. It is also an admitted fact that though the Opposite Party has issued a bill for Rs.5,27,605/- to him, they presented a bill for Rs.4,97,179/- for registration and for taking insurance. Therefore, the Complainant approached this commission alleging that the Opposite Party has obtained an excess amount of Rs.30,426/- from him because, according to him, the actual price of the vehicle is Rs.4,97,179/-. So, the allegation of the Complainant is that even though the Opposite Party obtained Rs.5,27,605/- from him and issued a bill for that amount, they produced a bill for Rs.4,97,179/- before the Sub Regional Transport Office and insurance Company. Therefore, according to him, there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party because they obtained excess amount from him. On the other hand Opposite Party contended that actually after discount, the price of the vehicle purchased by the Complainant was Rs.4,70,991/- and even though they produced that bill for registration, they were directed by the Sub Regional Transport Officer to pay an amount of additional tax of Rs. 12,377/- considering the actual price of the car without discount.
7. The complainant has given evidence as PW1. Ext.A1 is the copy of the tax invoice received by the Complainant and Ext.A2 is the copy of the tax invoice allegedly submitted by Opposite Party before the Transport Authority. From Exts.A1 and A2, it is evident that though the Opposite Party has given a tax invoice of Rs.5,27,605/- to the Complainant, they produced tax invoice for Rs.4,97,179/- before the transporting authority. To prove the case of the Opposite Party, they have examined their present manager. Ext.B1 is the transaction sheet issued to the Complainant by Opposite Party when he sold his old car. Ext.B2 is the statement which contains the total amount received in the account of the Complainant.
8. Anyhow, the grievance of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party obtained excess amount of Rs.30,426/- from him. According to him, he realised this, when the Opposite Party submitted tax invoice for Rs.4,97179 before the transport authority instead of the tax invoice given to him for Rs 5,27,605/-. The specific case of the Opposite Party is that though they have given Ext.A1 to the Complainant for the purpose of taking loan, actually he paid only Rs.4,97,179/-. Moreover, they affirmed that even if, they paid tax basing on the value stated in Ext.A2, the transport authority collected an additional tax of Rs. 12,377/- from them basing on the ex-show room value of the vehicle ie. Rs.5,27,605/-. The Complainant has not disputed or denied this fact when he has given evidence as PW1. When asked about this fact, PW1deposed that he don’t know whether the transport authority recovered Rs.12,377/- as an additional tax on Rs.5,27,605/- from Opposite Party. So, the case of the Opposite Party that they paid the tax on Rs.5,27,605/- is to be accepted without any further proof. The allegation of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party obtained excess amount from him and he came to know about this fact when the Opposite Party submitted Ex.A2 Tax invoice before the transport authority. But, in fact, the Opposite Party paid tax on Rs.5,27,605/- which is the ex-show room value of the vehicle purchased by the Complainant. Therefore, it is to be held that Opposite Party never obtained any excess amount from the Complainant as alleged. Therefore, it is to held that there is no deficiency in service on the Opposite Party. So, Complainant has not succeeded in proving his case. So this point is answered against the Complainant.
9. Point No. 2:- Since, we found point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
In the result the complaint is dismissed but without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 21st day of November 2022.
Date of Filing :18.10.2019.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Prakasan. M. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Ameen. C. Manager, Classic Hyundai.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Goods and Services Tax Invoice. Dt:13.12.2017.
A2. Copy of Goods and Services Tax Invoice. Dt:13.12.2017.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
B1. Pre-owned Car Transaction Sheet.
B2. Ledger Account of Complainant from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
