IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 29th day of April , 2017.
Filed on 28.07.2016
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George, President
2. Sri. Antony Xavier( Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No 248/2016
between
Complainants:- Opposite Party:-
- Sri. R. Muraleedharan Potty The Manager
S/o Ramachnadran potty Veeteejay Motors Pvt.Ltd
Vathukodathu Madam NH-47, Bypass Road
Thaikkattussery .P.O Kundanoor, Maradu.P.O
Cherthala, Alappuzha Cochin
Kerala
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant case in precise is as follows:-
The complainant on 16th July 2015 on paying Rs. 10,000/- booked a Hundai I 20 Midas Golden colour Car with the opposite party. The complainant booked the car solely for the opposite party assured the complainant that if the balance amount of the price of the case was remitted within 30th July 2015 the complainant would be delivered the Midas golden colour within 30 days of the said remittance of the balance amount. Believing the opposite party’s words, the complainant arranged a loan from State Bank of Travancore and some other source , and remitted the total balance amount on 30th July 2015. Thereafter on expiry of 30 days, the complainant approached the opposite party for taking delivery of the car. The opposite party impressed upon the complainant that the Midas gold colour car was not available, and the opposite party is all set to deliver any other colour car to the complainant. When the complainant refused, the opposite party agreed to give the complainant back the amount the complainant remitted. The complainant apprised of the opposite party that as the amount was arranged from bank as loan, the complainant had to accrue the interest thereof, and an amount of Rs. 2140/- was remitted with the opposite party towards processing fee, the opposite party is legally responsible to meet all these amounts when the price of the car remitted is refunded. However the opposite party repaid the amount only paid towards the price of the car. The complainant had to give away Rs. 2779/- as interest to the loan amount. The complainant was constrained to sustain the said sort of pecuniary loss due to the unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party inflicted mental agony too on the complainant. The complainant got aggrieved on this approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
- Notice served. The opposite party appeared and filed version. According to the opposite party, the complainant booked Hundai I 20 car as alleged by him. The complainant opted Midas gold colour as well. However the opposite party did not give any exact date of delivery to the complainant. The delivery of the vehicle is beyond the opposite party’s control. It depends upon the production, supply, availability etc. from the company. The opposite has not collected any process charge from the complainant. The opposite party has duly intimated the complainant that the complainant chosen- colour car was not available at that point of time for some reasons unknown to the opposite party. The complainant was free to choose any other colour car from the possession of the opposite party. But the complainant was unwilling, and the opposite party sustained loss as to paper work and otherwise. Still the opposite party has not charged any amount as to the same from the complainant. The complainant case is absolutely contrary to facts which warrants no consideration. The complainant is only to be dismissed with cost and compensation to the opposite party.
- The complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents ExtsA1 to Ext.A6 were marked. The opposite party cross examined the complainant.
- Keeping in mind the contention of the parties, the issued that come up for consideration before us are:-
- Whether the opposite party availed an amount of Rs. 2140/- ?
- Whether there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
- Concededly the complainant booked a Hundai I 20 Midas gold colour car with the opposite party. The complainant remitted the entire amounts to the said car. However when the complainant approached the opposite party to take delivery of the vehicle admittedly the said vehicle was not available with the opposite party. We carefully went through all the materials placed on record before us by both the parties. According to the opposite party the opposite party has nothing to do with the non availability of the colour chosen by the complainant. It is true that the opposite party has given back the amount remitted towards the price of the car. Now what remains thereof to be looked into if the opposite party availed any amount from the complainant towards processing charge. Amount if any was so charged whether the same has been refunded. Going by the evidence let in by the complainant, it does appear that the opposite party has received an amount of Rs. 2140/- towards processing charge. It is also clearly come out in evidence that the complainant had to give away Rs. 2779/- as interest towards the loan amount. The contention of the opposite party is that the opposite party has not obtained any amount namely processing charge. In such context, there arises no question of repayment of the same from the side of the opposite party. As we have already observed, the evidence produced by the complainant definitely shows that the opposite party obtained processing fee from the complainant. We are persuaded to hold the view that the opposite party is liable to give back the said amount to the complainant.
In the result the complaint allowed, the opposite party is directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2140/- (Rupees Two thousand One hundred and Forty only) and an amount of Rs. 2779/- (Rupees Two thousand Seven hundred and Seventy nine only) the processing fee the complainant remitted with the opposite party and the interest the complainant had to pay to the bank by way of interest respectively with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the instant complaint till realization of the said amount. The opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1000/-(Rupees Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this court within 30 days of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of April, 2017.
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of Order booking form
Ext.A2 - Copy of Cash receipt voucher
Ext.A3 - Copy of Bank receipt voucher
Ext.A4. - Copy of Letter
Ext.A5 - Copy of letter
Ext.A6 - Copy of Acknowledgement Card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
//True copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite party/SF
Typed by: Br/-
Compd. By:
