DATE OF FILING : 9.4.2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th  day of  June,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.138/2015

Between

Complainant       :   Jose Thomas,

Panthranal House,    

Narakakkanam P.O.,

Cheruthoni, Idukki.

(By Adv:  K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :  1. The Manager,

     Popular Vehicles & Services,

     Vadakkekkuttu Building,

     Kattappana P.O.,

     Idukki.

2. The Manager,

     Popular Vehicles & Services,

     Kuttookkaran Centre,

     Mamangalam P.O.,

     Kochi – 682 025.

     (Both by Adv: Babichen V. George,

& Lal K. Joseph)

  3. The Manager,

      Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd.,

      Gurgaon, Hariyana. 

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

          Complainant booked a Maruthi Alto 800 car with 1st opposite party on 14.1.2015, attracted by the advertisement published by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties in Malayala Manorama daily on 10th and 13th of January, 2015.  While he approaching 1st opposite party, they offered that they will give Rs.35000/- for the complainant’s old 2007 model car as exchange price and also offered the discount which is stated in the said advertisement.  Complainant paid an amount of Rs.25000/- as advance amount at the time of booking the car.  He arranged  an  amount  of  Rs.2,37,500/-  as  loan  and alongwith this amount,       (cont....2)

-  2  -

he arranged another Rs.26000/- for purchasing the car.  In total, he paid Rs.2,88,500/- for purchasing the vehicle.  Complainant further stated that, at the time of purchasing the vehicle, 1st opposite party given a statement of account and as per this statement, the actual price of the vehicle is Rs.3,68,057/-.  If Rs.35000/- being the price of old vehicle and offer of Rs.75000/- is deducted from the actual price of the vehicle as per the statement of account, the balance purchase price of the vehicle which is liable to be paid by the complainant was only Rs.2,58,057/-.  At the same time, they realized Rs.2,88,508/- from the complainant as the price of the vehicle.  The complainant further stated that, the 1st opposite party charged price for the accessories, which was offered by them as free, at the time of booking the vehicle.  The invoice they given is confusing and nobody can follow that how they calculated the amount.  Moreover, in the statement, the price of the old vehicle is not entered.

          The complainant further stated that 1st opposite party realized an additional  amount of Rs.30,443/- from the complainant through their misleading advertisement of daily newspaper.  Due to this the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.30,443/-, this is the gross unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and the complainant is entitled to get the  additional amount back, along with compensation and cost for the misleading advertisement of opposite parties 1 to 3.    

          Upon notice, opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In this version, opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that, through the paper advertisement mentioned above, among various offers, a discount of Rs.75,000/- was offered for taxi registration of Maruthi Alto vehicle.  The complainant purchased the vehicle for private use  which will not attract this offer.  Further, the exchange price of Rs.35,000/- offered for his old vehicle including loyalty bonus of Rs.20,000/- which is clear from the possession letter.  Opposite parties further contended that there was a price increase of Rs.10,338/- on the vehicle at the time of invoicing the vehicle as against the price shown at the time of booking.  Such price difference has been deducted during the final settlement.  Apart from that, an additional cash discount of Rs.30,000/- was also given to the complainant as goodwill measures.  Hence the excess cash of Rs.30,447/- claimed by the complainant are absolutely wrong 

(cont....3)

-  3  -

allegation and  the whole payment made by the complainant is only the actual price applicable for the vehicle, cost of its registration, insurance and accessories availed etc.  The opposite parties had never published any advertisement for an unlawful gain.  The complainant had not incurred any loss as alleged and nor have these opposite parties made any offer of free accessories nor have collected any excess amount as alleged.

          Opposite parties 1 and 2 further contended that the complainant has not made any objection or claim at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle and paid the whole amount in cash without any protest.  Hence the contention that these opposite parties have collected more money than due, as alleged, only in an experimental basis.  In this reply version, 3rd opposite party contended that, the complainant has failed to set out any specific allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the opposite party and further failed to disclose any specific cause of action.  The name of this opposite party is therefore, liable to be deleted from the array of parties.  Third  opposite party further contended that they sells the vehicle to its dealer under the dealership agreement.  The dealer sell the vehicle to their customers under their own invoice and sale certificate as per the terms and conditions settled between the dealer and the individual customer.  The complainant has neither paid any amount to the opposite party nor the 3rd opposite party sold / delivered vehicle in question to the complainant.  The entire sale contract was executed between the complainant and 1st opposite party exclusively to which this opposite party is not liable for any short comings.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief, as prayed for.

          Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and document.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 marked.  Ext.P1 is the copy of RC Book, Ext.P2 is the copy of statement of account.  Ext.P3(series) are cash receipt voucher copy.  Ext.P4(series) are the sales receipt, possession letter and used vehicle account settlement details.  Ext.P5 is the copy of tax invoice.  Ext.P6(series) are the copy of counter sale / retail invoice.  Ext.P7(series) are   Malayala Manorama daily news papers dated 10.1.2015, 13.1.2015 and 16.1.2015.

                   (cont....4)

-  4  -

From the opposite side, one Shaji Thomas, Manager of the 1st opposite party was examined as DW1.  Exts.R1 to R6 marked.  Ext.R1 is the copy of vehicle booking form.  Ext.R2 is the vehicle tax invoice.  Ext.R3 is copy of post sales follow up.  Ext.R4 is customer satisfaction note.  Ext.R5 is the copy of fund transfer.  Ext.R6 is the copy of ISL scheme summary for the month of January, 2015.  

          Heard both the side.  The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

          The POINT :-  The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that, attracting by the paper advertisement (Ext.P7), complainant approached the 1st opposite party for purchasing the car.  As per the advertisement, 1st opposite party offered Rs.75000/- as discount from the purchase price of the vehicle which is booking within the period from the date of advertisement, i.e., from the 1st week of January 2015 to 20th January 2015.  At the time of booking the vehicle, i.e., on 14.1.2015, the price of the vehicle as per the statement issued by the opposite party (Ext.P2) is Rs.3,68,057.00/-.  The counsel further submitted that, the complainant is entitled to get the discount of Rs.75000/- as per the advertisement along with Rs.35,000/- being the exchange price of his old car.  In total, the opposite party is bound to deduct Rs.1,10,000/- from the actual purchase price of the vehicle as on the date of booking of the vehicle.        Instead of Rs.2,58,057/-, being the price of the vehicle, after deducting the above discounts, opposite party grabbed an amount of Rs.2,88,500/- from the complainant at the time of delivering the vehicle, i.e., opposite party realized an amount of Rs.30,443/- from the complainant illegally.  This is gross unfair trade practice and the opposite party is bound to refund that amount.

          At the same time, the learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that, the paper advertisement mentioned herein, among various offers, a discount of Rs.75000/- was offered for taxi registration of Maruthi Alto vehicle.  The complainant has not purchased the vehicle for taxi purposes, same is not only clear from the paper advertisement by the complainant before booking of the vehicle.  The complainant has calculated Rs.75000/- discount offer alleging it to be therein the paper advertisement, which is not correct and        (cont....5)

-  5  - 

such offer was not applicable to the complainant’s vehicle.  The learned counsel further argued that, the price difference of Rs.10,331/- was also deducted during final settlement.  Apart from this an additional cash discount of Rs.30000/- was also given to the complainant as a goodwill measure and all such deductions availed by the complainant is clear from the statement of account handed over to him, at the time of delivery.  It is also to be considered that the complainant has not made any objection or claim at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle and paid whole amount in cash without any protest.   Hence these opposite parties are no way liable for the allegations leveled against them.

          The learned counsel for 3rd  opposite party argued that, in this case, 3rd opposite party has neither issued any advertisement nor sold the vehicle in question to the complainant as alleged.  This opposite party has neither offered any discount to the complainant nor collected any amount towards price of the vehicle in question from the complainant.  The alleging invoice or statement of account were not given by this opposite party.  This  opposite party is not responsible for any  act or omission on the part of other opposite parties on the reason that, the relationship between the opposite party and other opposite parties are on principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent.

          We have heard for the counsel of both sides and had gone through the evidence on records. It is an admitted fact that complainant booked a Maruthi Alto car by paying an amount of Rs.25000/- to 1st opposite party on 14.1.2015.  He caused to book this car only on attracting advertisement of the opposite parties 1 and 2 published in the daily newspaper which has wide reach and is easily accessible by the general public.  Believing the discount offered in the advertisement marked as Ext.P7 and some other newspaper, complainant booked the car on 14.1.2015.  By perusing this advertisement, it is seen that, the advertisement offers Rs.81,000/- as total saving of ‘Vagon R’ car and a total savings of Rs.75000/- as Maruthi Alto 800 car.  Moreover, it is specifically highlighted that ‘this offer is valid till 20th January.  The allegation of the complainant that, at the time of purchase of the vehicle, he given his 1997 model Maruthi car to them and as per Ext.P4(series) documents, such as sales receipt, possession letter and used vehicle account settlement detail, they fixed Rs.35000/- as exchange price of this  old vehicle.  Therefore the complainant    (cont....6)

-  6  -

entitled to get a total deduction of Rs.1,10,000/- from the on road price of the vehicle in question.  But the opposite parties given a discount of Rs.30000/- as cash discount and Rs.35000/- as exchange offer and Rs.10,331/- as price difference,  in total, the 1st opposite party deducted an amount of Rs.75,331/- instead of deduction an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-.  By going through Ext.P2 statement of account, the actual on road price of the vehicle is Rs.3,68,057/-.    From this on road price of Rs.3,68,056/-, opposite parties deducted Rs.30000/- as cash discount, Rs.20000/- as loyalty, Rs.10,338/- as price difference, Rs.15000/- as exchange price of old car and Rs.4193/- on some other heads.  in total, opposite parties deducted Rs.78,469/-., instead of deducting Rs.1,10,000/-.  In this way, opposite parties realized an amount of Rs.31531/-.  As per the contention of the complainant, opposite parties grabbed Rs.30443/- in addition as purchase price from the complainant.  the rival contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2 that the advertisement mentioned by the complainant was offered for taxi purpose is not at all admissible and is against the actual fact.  Such a contention is not seen in the advertisement.  No contra evidence is produced by the opposite party to strengthening their such a plea.    On going through Ext.P7 advertisement, it is further noticed that it is published by the 1st opposite party and one Indus Motors.  This discount is offered by the dealers alone and the 3rd opposite party manufacturer is having no role in this advertisement.  It is done only for the purpose of business promotion of the dealers.  Hence 3rd opposite party is having no responsibility or liability in this matter.  From the averement and deposition of the complainant, it is very clear that, 1st and 2nd opposite parties withdrawn from paying full discount as advertised by them.  In this advertisement, the discount which the opposite parties are offered are not specifically described.  This advertisement is clearly misleading and was done with a view to ensure the attention of consumers.  The newspaper which advertisement published has wide reach and is accessible by the consumers.  On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that the complainant approached the 1st opposite party only by attracting the offer of Ext.R7 advertisement and it is proved by him.  Hence the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are directed to cease and desist from publishing such advertisements and any similar advertisement to confuse the general public.       (cont....7)

-  7  -

Hence the complaint allowed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.25000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost, jointly,  within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount of compensation shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

                       Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2018

           Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

     Sd/-

         SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1              -   Jose Thomas.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -  Shaiju Thomas.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1              -   copy of RC Book. 

Ext.P2             - copy of statement of account.  

Ext.P3(series) - cash receipt voucher copy.  

Ext.P4(series) - sales receipt, possession letter and used vehicle account

        settlement details.  

Ext.P5             -  copy of tax invoice.  

Ext.P6(series) -  the copy of counter sale / retail invoice.  

Ext.P7             -  Malayala Manorama daily news papers dated  10.1.2015,

        13.1.2015 and 16.1.2015. 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1            -   copy of vehicle booking form.  

Ext.R2          -  vehicle tax invoice.  

Ext.R3          -  copy of post sales follow up.  

Ext.R4          -  customer satisfaction note.  

Ext.R5          -  copy of fund transfer.  

Ext.R6          -  copy of ISL scheme summary for the month of January, 2015. 

 

          Forwarded by Order,

 

             SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT