IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of May, 2016
Filed on 01.01.2016
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.2/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Chandra Bose 1. The Showroom Manager
Kaveri Popular Vehicle & Services
Punnapra P.O. Alappuzha
Alappuzha – 4
2. The Sales Manager
Popular Vehicle & Services
Kuttukaran Centre
Mamangalam, Cochin – 25
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in succinct is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a Motor car Maruti Ertiga from the opposite parties. On purchasing the said vehicle, the complainant came to understand that the opposite parties without any authority had inflict imposed Rs.6,000/- as handling charge and get hold of the said amount from the complainant. The opposite party has no right or authority to levy such an amount from the complainant. On being aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
3. Notices were served, yet the opposite parties did not turn up to challenge the complainant’s case. Resultantly, the opposite parties were set ex-parte.
4. The complainant’s evidence consists of the affidavit of the complainant and the documents Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. As observed earlier, the opposite parties have not appeared or adduced any evidence.
5. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that crop up before us for consideration are:-
1) Whether the opposite parties’ trade practice is unfair ?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
6. We cautiously went through the materials placed on record by the complainant. Exts.A1 to A5 evidently revealed that the opposite parties obtained Rs.6,000/- as handling charge from the complainant. It is significant to notice that the opposite parties have no authority to impose any amount namely handling charge on the complainant. As we have already observed, the opposite parties neither turned up nor let in any evidence to challenge the complainant’s case. In the context of the complainant’s plausible case and in the premise of not disputing the same, we are of the strong view that the complainant is entitled to relief. It goes without saying that the service of the opposite parties is deficient. We hold that the opposite parties are liable.
7. In the wake of what have been discussed hereinabove, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) to the complainant, the opposite parties unauthorisedly collected from the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as compensation to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order. No order as to cost.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2016.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of the certificate of registration
Ext.A2 - Copy of the commitment checklist
Ext.A3 - Copy of the Tax/Vehicle Invoice
Ext.A4 - Copy of the email invoice for Rs.6,000/-
Ext.A5 - Copy of the preliminary information sheet
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
