This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of          Sri. A. Venkata Ramana, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. G. Madhava Rao, Advocate for Opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant had approached the opposite party after having observed the advertisement, given by it by offering the discounts on TATA Brand Four Wheelers.  After enquiring all the details, decided to purchase TATA Venture EX-BSIII Vehicle.  The complainant submitted that at the time of purchase, the opposite party had agreed to provide finance facility from Hinduja Layland Finance Ltd., Vijayawada and also agreed to provide insurance facility and all the accessories on free of cost.  After that, the complainant had paid Rs.2,000/- on 23-08-2012 towards booking cost and Rs.98,000/- on 31-08-2012 towards part payment, the balance amount of Rs.3,85,000/- was provided by the financier, in total, the opposite party had received Rs.4,85,000/- towards vehicle cost.  The complainant alleges that the opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs.30,337/- instead of bill amount of Rs.4,54,663/- upon which, issued legal notice dt. 21-01-2014, in response to the same, the opposite party got issued reply notice on 31-01-2014 with false statements.  The complainant further alleges that the opposite party had collected 14.5% VAT on cost of the vehicle though it has a rebate of 5% as used as taxi, for that, the opposite party had collected Rs.19,854.3.  The opposite party also collected Rs.9,000/- towards documentation and other incidental charges without issuing any receipt. In total, the complainant had paid Rs.30,337 + 19,854.3 + 9,000 + 6,000 = 65,191.3  upon which, filed the consumer complaint before this Forum by alleging the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and by praying to direct it to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and to direct to refund Rs.65,191.3 together with interest @12% per annum from the date of purchase of vehicle and costs.

3.       In support of his case, the complainant filed affidavit and Exhibits    A1 to A13.

4.       After service of notice, the opposite party filed its counter by denying the averments of complaint and submitted that the Ex-Show Room price of the vehicle in dispute was @ Rs.5,14,091/-, for which, it had collected Rs.4,54,663/- after deducting discounts up to Rs.59,428/-.  The complainant had paid Rs.1,00,000/- and the financier had paid Rs.3,79,000/- instead of sanctioning amount of Rs.3,85,000/- and as such, the complainant had paid the balance amount of Rs.6,000/- on 21-09-2012 by way of cash.  Further the complainant had paid Rs.1,760 and 16,780/- towards logistic / handling charges and insurance charges, forms part and parcel of Rs.1,06,000/-.  The opposite party denied the other averments of complaint and prayed to dismiss the same as the complaint is false, not bonafide and not sustainable.   

5.       In addition to the averments of complaint, the complainant had filed written arguments by submitting the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Kamal Auto Hyundai Vs. Pawan Chand & Ors.  Vide RP.No.4503 of 2009.  The opposite party filed a memo, stating to treat the contents of it’s counter as written arguments. 

6.       In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-        

          In this case, unfortunately, the learned counsel for the opposite party filed a memo by objecting that the adjudication of this matter is not just and proper before this Forum as the complainant is to be working in this Forum and also raised an another objection by stating that the standing counsel of this Forum has no role to play in the present case.  In fact, this Forum has no standing counsel, so, any issues in this regard does not arise at all.  As far as the other objection with regard to the mis-carriage of justice is concerned, it is a fact that the complainant has been working as a typist in this Forum.  We used to utilize him as a typist only for typing our dictations due to lack of stenographers.  However, to avoid unnecessary issues, we have decided to answer this point in own hand writing.

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased Tata Venture Ex-BSIII model Maxicab from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.4,54,663/- by obtaining finance from Hinduja Layland Finanace and the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards part payment before delivery of vehicle and also not in dispute regarding the payment of balance amount, provided by the financier, the only dispute is with regard to the collection of excess amount of Rs.65,191.3/- against the assurances.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party had agreed to give discount on VAT for Taxi model and agreed to provide all accessories on free of cost, despite that, collected Rs.19,854.3/- towards VAT though the Taxi model has got rebate of 5% and also collected Rs.30,337/- towards excess amount, in addition, collected Rs.6,000/- towards balance amount instead of payment of Rs. 3,85,000/- made by the financier.  In order to prove his case, placed exhibits A-1 to A-13.  Having considered the aforesaid contentions and the material available on record, it is clear that the opposite party had delivered the vehicle to the complainant after receipt of Rs.4,85,000/-, evidenced under exhibits A-2 to A-4 and A-13.  Exhibits A-2 and A-3 are the receipts for Rs.2,000/- and 98,000/-, issued by the opposite party.  Exhibit A-5 is the endorsement of the financier for Rs.3,85,000/-, exhibit  A-13 is the statement of account, speaks that the payment of finance amount as Rs.3,85,000/-, accordingly, the opposite party had received Rs.4,85,000/-, but issued invoice @Rs.4,54,663/- is definitely amounts to unfair trade practice.  The broucher was marked under exhibit A-10, wherein, it was clearly mentioned, if the vehicle was used as taxi, it will get a discount @ Rs.20,000/- but it is not reflected in the invoice.  On the other hand the opposite party contended that the ex-showroom cost of the vehicle was Rs.5,14,091/-, after deducting the discount of Rs.59,428/-, collected Rs.4,54,663/- and also averred that the financier had paid Rs.3,79,000/- instead of Rs.3,85,000/-, so, the complainant was paid Rs.6,000/- towards total cost of the vehicle and the other charges, required,  but no documents were filed to prove it’s contentions, without filing any material we could not able to consider the matter in favour of the opposite party.  In support of his case, the complainant had referred the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Kamal Auto Hyundai Vs. Pawan Chand and Ors. In R.P. No.4503/2009, wherein, the National Commission held that the opposite party is liable to refund the excess amount collected by it together with interest @9% per annum from the date of total payment of purchase amount by confirming the order of District Forum except awarding of amount towards mental agony.

          In view of aforesaid discussion and in the light of above decision, we feel that the opposite party is liable to refund Rs.30,337/- collected by it towards excess amount and Rs.6,000/- collected by it in addition to the payment of Rs.3,85,000/- made by the financier.  Further it is also liable to refund Rs.20,000/- as agreed by it through the broacher.  The complaint with regard to collection of Rs.9,000/- towards documentation and incidental charges is rejected as there is no proof on record.  Accordingly, the complaint is answered in favour of the complainant.

7.       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to refund Rs.30,337/- + 6,000/- collected by it towards excess amount.  Further directed to refund Rs.20,000/- as agreed by it towards deduction of discount on Taxi – Model.  The opposite party shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum from 13-09-2012 on said amounts and costs of Rs.1,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

          Written and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 19^th day of September 2016.

    Member             FAC President             

District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party

    Member             FAC President             

District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.