IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday, the 28th day of February, 2015.
Filed on 22..06..2011.
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member) in
CC/No.214/2011
Between
Complainant: Opposite party:
Secretary The Manager
Cherthala Taluk Taxi Drivers’ Co-operative RF Motors (P) Ltd.
Society No.A 741 Skyline Apartments
Rep. By K.Gopinathan Nair Pathadippalam Nenmana Thekkeveli Edappally
Vayalar P.O. Kochi – 682 033.
Cherthala.
O R D E R
SMT.ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
This is a remanded matter. The case was once heard and the President of the then Forum passed the order on 30.12.2011 allowing the complaint. Since there was no detailed order, Hon’ble State Commission suo motto taken up the matter and remanded the case for hearing for the purpose of passing a speaking order. After remanded, notices were issued to both parties for hearing the matter. Complainant has filed this complaint before the Forum on 22.06.2011 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows:-
2. The complainant is the consumer of Cherthala Taxi Drivers Co-operative Society Ltd. No.A-741. On March 2011 the complainant purchased a TATA Indigo car. As per the proforma invoice issued by the opposite party, the handling charge plus road tax is shown as Rs.8000/- as per the receipt issued on 08.03.2011. The complainant asked the details about it and a written document was handed over to him by the opposite party explaining that they received Rs.3000/- towards Vehicle Transportation and Delivery Charge and Rs.5000/- towards handling charge. Thereafter the complainant asked the difference between the handling charge and VTDC. But the opposite party failed to give a satisfactory reply and that caused to issue a legal notice against the opposite party. Even though it was accepted by the opposite party, the problem remains unsolved. Hence the complaint is filed.
3. Version of the opposite party:- The complainant is not a consumer. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. It is true that the complainant’s association purchased an Indigo car on March 2011. But the same was purchased for a commercial purpose. Hence the complaint is not maintainable on that ground also. The opposite party had clearly explained various charges involved in the invoice and the complainant was convinced about the same before paying the amount and purchasing the vehicle. The allegation that the opposite party has charged excess amount from the complainant through the invoice is false. The complainant was explained about all the charges as per the proforma invoice and they expressed their willingness to pay the same for their convenience and saving the time. The complainant is not entitled to all the reliefs so far. Hence it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The points for consideration:-
1) Whether the complainant is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost from the
opposite party?
5. The complainant filed proof affidavit and cross affidavit. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit and cross affidavit. The documents produced by complainant were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is the copy of proforma invoice. Ext.A2 series are the receipts. Ext.A3 is the copy of advocate notice. Ext.A4 is the acknowledgement card and Ext.A5 is the copy of minutes book.
6. Ext.A5, the copy of minutes book shows that a resolution passed by the members of the society appointing Mr.Gopinathan Nair to conduct the case before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Alappuzha regarding the matter alleged in the complaint. Accordingly Mr.Gopinathan Nair filed proof affidavit on behalf of the complainant. As pr the complaint, the vehicle is purchased in order to meet the livelihood of the members of the taxi drivers’ co-operative society. No evidence is adduced by the opposite party to discredit the claim of the complainant. Hence the complaint is maintainable. Hence Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a TATA Indigo car from the opposite party. According to the complainant the opposite party received Rs.8000/- from the complainant towards VTDC and handling charge. When the complainant asked the details about it, the opposite party explained it as Rs.3000/- towards VTDC and Rs.5000/- handling charge. Ext.A2 series evidenced the same. According to the complainant, the explanation given by the opposite party is not satisfactory and that caused to issue legal notice to the opposite party. Exts.A3 and A4 evidenced the same. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant was informed that various charges included in the invoices and the complainant was convinced about the same before paying the amount and purchasing the vehicle. According to the opposite party, they have not charged excess amount from the complainant. On examining the Ext.A2 series, we came to see that the opposite party has received Rs.8000/- towards VTDC plus handling charge. The Ext.A2 series No.2 shows that Rs.3000/- received towards VTDC and Rs.5000/- towards handling charge. It shows that the opposite party received excess amount for the same purpose, ie. handling charge. They are not entitled to receive Rs.3000/- under VTDC and again Rs.5000/- towards handling charge. They are liable to receive either Rs.5000/- or Rs.3000/- under that head. Hence we are of the opinion that the opposite party received excess amount under the same head, ie. towards handling charge. The explanation given by the opposite party is not satisfactory. The act of the opposite party in receiving excess amount for handling purpose and the failure on their part to give a satisfactory reply to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result the complainant is allowed partly. The opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards cost and compensation to the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum in this the 28th day of February, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D (Member)
Appendix:
Evidence of the complainant:
Ext.A1 - Copy of proforma invoice.
Ext.A2 series - Receipts (2 Nos.)
Ext.A3 - Copy of advocate notice.
Ext.A4 - Acknowledgement card.
Ext.A5 - Copy of minutes book.
Evidence of the opposite party: Nil
-//True Copy//-
By Order,
To
Senior Superintendent.
Complainant/Opposite parties /SF
Typed by: Pg/-
Compd by : Pr/-
