Date of filing : 01-04-2011
Date of order ; 30-07-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.80/2011
Dated this, the 30th day of July 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Rajeev.G.S, } Complainant
S/o.Gopinathan Nair,
R/at ‘Saja Mandiram’,
Po.Manadukkam, Via.Chengala,
Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv.K.Kumaran Nair, Kasaragod)
The Proprietor, } Opposite party
Monal Motors, NH.17, Po.Thottada,
Kannur.670007.
(Adv.M.Preman, Kannur)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
The complaint in brief is as follows:
On 20-10-2010 (Sic 20-04-2010) Complainant Rajeev booked a Tipper Lorry which is having power steering facility with opposite party. He paid `8,65,000/- as the price of the vehicle. It was delivered on 24-06-2010 and at the time of delivery the opposite party stated that Power Steering is an added facility and they demanded additional amount of `36,000/-. According to complainant Power Steering is an ordinary part of the vehicle he booked and therefore he refused to pay the additional amount. So the opposite party tried to remove the power steering motor from the vehicle that was protested by the complainant. As a reprisal opposite party retained the service book, invoice, insurance policy and other important documents that would have been given at the time of delivery of the vehicle. Therefore complainant has constrained to do the periodical services of the vehicle from other service centres. No there is persisting problems to gear box. Moreover for want of vehicular documents police fined the complainant. Now the vehicle is virtually confined to porch for want of vehicular documents. Thereby complainant had a total loss of `1,50,000/-. Hence the complaint.
2. According to opposite party complainant placed an order for the vehicle SUPER CABIN CHASSIS WITH AUXILLARY GEAR BOX and the averment that he booked for a vehicle having the Power Steering is false. The Power Steering, Tipper Jack, Tipper Body etc are the optional additional items to be fitted in the vehicle as per the need of the customers for that they have to pay the additional amount. The complainant purchased the vehicle by exchanging his Super Tipper Vehicle. The invoice value of the vehicle was `8,55,000/- and the exchange value of the vehicle was fixed as `6,15,000/-. The complainant availed a loan of `2,50,000/- from Sundaram Finance Ltd. On 14-06-2010 complainant approached for taking delivery of the vehicle. At that time complainant requested chassis of the vehicle available with power steering and he agreed to pay additional amount for power steering option. On 24-06-2010 the opposite party delivered the vehicle having the power steering to the complainant. At the time of delivery complainant undertook that he will pay the additional amount for the Power Steering within one month. On the basis of his undertaking they delivered the vehicle to the complainant through his representative Prakash. It is not true that the opposite party has not handed over the service book, invoice, insurance policy and other documents to the complainant. Inspite of repeated demands made by the opposite party the complainant neither paid the outstanding balance amount nor brought the vehicle for periodical checkup. Since there was no response even after repeated demands, opposite party sent demand notice to the complainant on 01-12-2010 demanding the price of the Power Steering with request to avail free services for the vehicle. The actual price of the power steering is `36000/- in that an amount of `10,500/- was adjusted from the account of the complainant which he has already paid before delivery of the vehicle and now the balance demanded is `25000/-.Complainant sent a reply after 2 months stating false allegations and he has not availed proper services. Had the vehicle had complaints as alleged then it ought to have brought to them and they should have taken steps to redress the complaints. The complaint is filed only on experimental basis and it is liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. Exts A1 to A6 marked on his side. On the side of opposite party M.K.Prashob, General Manager of the opposite party’s firm filed affidavit. Exts B1 to B5 marked through him and he is cross-examined by the counsel for complainant. Both sides heard. Documents perused.
4. The points arises for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant booked the vehicle having power steering facility?
2. Whether the Power steering of a vehicle is an integral part of the vehicle or is it
Optional?
3. Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
4. If so, what is the order as to relief & costs?
5. For the sake of convenience and brevity of point Nos 1 to 3 are discussed together.
The specific case of the complainant is that inspite of supplying the chassis of the vehicle having the power steering which is an integral part of the vehicle he booked, the opposite party claimed additional amount for the power steering facility claiming to be an optional facility and when he did not pay it the opposite party stealthy tried to remove the power steering facility. To substantiate his case he is relying on Exts A1 to A6 documents. Ext.A1 is the copy of the order booking form dated 20-04-2010. As per Ext.A1 it is seen that complainant had booked a Super Cabin Chassis with Auxillary Gear Box worth `8,55,000/-. The free offers made to the complainant are the 1st year insurance and speed governor. Ext.A1 silent about the facility of power steering. Ext.A2 is the lawyer notice dated 1-12-2010 issued at the instruction of the opposite party to the complainant demanding `3,60,000/- towards the price of the power steering. The notice further asks the complainant to bring the vehicle for the service as per the warranty card issued to him. Ext.A3 is the reply to Ext.A2. Ext.A2 is dated 5-02-2011 refuting the claim of the opposite party. Ext.A4 is the copy of the tax invoice dated 14-06-2010 issued by opposite party to complainant. In that purchase price of SWARAJ MAZDA SUPER TIPPER EURO II MODEL is shown as `8,55,000/-. Ext.A5 series are the bills issued to the complainant for effecting repairs to his vehicle. Ext. A6 is a proforma invoice dated 25-06-2010 issued from Maxim Motors Cochin to one VV Jaims. In Ext.A6 the price quoted for the vehicle Swaraj Mazda AGB (Auxillary Gear Box) PS (Power Steering) Chassis is `8,50,000/-.
6. To substantiate the contentions opposite party produced Exts B1 to B5. Exts B1 & A1 are the same. Both are the copies of order booking form placed by the complainant. Ext.B2 is the copy of the delivery note dated 24-06-2010 signed by one Prakash on behalf of complainant. Exts B3 is the price list of the different types of vehicles including that one delivered to the complainant. Ext.B3 is marked subject to the objection of the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that it is not authenticated by any one. Ext.B4 is the certified copy of the plaint filed by the opposite party against the complainant before the Munsiff Court, Thalassery on 29-07-2011. Ext.B5 is the copy of lawyer notice issued at the instance of opposite party to the complainant.
7. Exts A1 & B1 are the same. It is the order booking form. In Ext.A1 nowhere it is noted that the order placed is for a power steering vehicle. Had the complainant placed the order for a power steering vehicle then it should have find an entry in Exts A1 & B1 as seen in Ext.A6.
8. In this regard the contention of the complainant is that power steering is an ordinary part of the vehicle and hence it need not be specifically mentioned in the order booking form since all that type of vehicles is manufactured with power steering facility. But at the same time he is relying on Ext. A6 show the price of a power steering Auxillary Gear Box Power Steering Swaraj Mazad Tipper Chassis. In Ext.A6 the option of Power Steering is specifically noted in it’s abbreviated form as P.S. This itself shows that Power Steering is an added facility. If the Power Steering was an ordinary facility then in Ext.A6 it should not have noted.
9. Further it is a common fact that usually manufacturers of the vehicles (except in the case of super luxury vehicles) are manufacturing and marketing vehicles with and without power steering options and their market price also differ from one to the other.
10. Moreover, Ext.B2 delivery note is also goes against the complainant. It is noted on the top portion of Ext.B2 in vernacular language that the booking was for a vehicle without Power steering and the Chassis of the vehicle delivered is with a power steering. It is also noted that if the price for the power steering is not paid then it will be removed from the vehicle and this is as per the instructions from GM in telephonic conversation to complainant Rajeev.
11. With respect to this entries the learned counsel for the complainant Sri.Kumaran Nair cross-examined DW1, General Manager of opposite party. During cross-examination DW1 deposed that the said entries are done by their vehicle delivering staff and he did not see who put the signature below that entry. He denied the suggestion that those entries are made by them themselves for the purpose of the case.
12. The complainant has no case that the opposite party had not delivered the Chassis of the vehicle to him which is having a Power Steering. According to him he placed order for a Chassis of Swaraj Mazda Super Cabin with Auxillary Gear Box and the Power Steering is an integral part of the said unit and he received the vehicle he booked.
13. So according to him there was no amount due from him to the opposite party and even then they willfully retained the vehicular documents. The crucial questions that remained unexplained by the complainant are why he did not approach the opposite party for effecting the free services offered by the manufacturer of the vehicle and why he did not take any proceedings to get the documents back that is allegedly retained by the opposite party. His non availing of free services and keeping mum even after the retention of vehicular documents by opposite party would show that he is intentionally not approached the opposite party and there was by some amount due from him to opposite party and that was the amount due towards the price of the Power Steering. Had it not been so, he would have approached the opposite party claiming the balance amount `10,500/- due to him from opposite party in the transaction. In other words the conduct of the complainant after taking delivery of the chassis was like that of a debtor who is trying to evade the payment due in transactions. It is pertinent to note that it was opposite party who caused lawyer notice claiming the purchase price of the power steering from the complainant especially complainant had a case that due to the non-possession of the vehicular documents he could not ply the vehicle fearing legal proceedings by the departmental authorities.
14. It is true that there are anomalies in the price of the vehicle quoted in Ext.A1, Ext A4 and Ext. A6. As contended by the opposite party had the complainant booked a vehicle without a power steering then how they supplied him a vehicle having the optional facility of power steering quoting the same price. But this anomaly in pricing is not the issue raised by complainant. Complainant had no case that opposite party over quoted the price of the vehicle in Ext.A1 which is not having a power steering facility and thereby tried to overcharge him. Ext. B3, though it’s marking is objected for the reason of non-authentication, would goes to show that power steering is an optional item and it is not an integral part of all the vehicles.
15. From the discussions as above it can be concluded that the complainant was placed an order for a vehicle which was without a power steering and he got delivery of a Super Cabin Assembly vehicle having a power steering facility. In the said circumstances we are unable to find any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
16. Point.No.3. Relief & Costs
Since the points 1 & 2 discussed above are found against the complainant, the complaint deserves a dismissal which we hereby do.
In the result, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts
A1.20-4-2010 copy of order booking form Vehicles (Customer copy)
A2.1-12-2010 lawyer notice (Reply notice)
A3.5-2-11 copy of lawyer notice.
A4. copy of tax invoice.
A5 series (a to c) Cash bills.
A6. Proforma invoice.
B1. 20-04-2010Copy of order booking form –vehicles (Office copy)
B2. 24-06-10. copy of delivery note
B3. Price list.
B4.. Certified copy of OS.281/2011
B5. 1-12-2010 copy of lawyer notice.
DW1. M.K.Prashob
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
