Date of Filing : 18.03.2021
Date of Disposal: 29.11.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,.MCom., ICWA(Inter)., B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.24/2021
THIS TUESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
A.Vimal, S/o.Arokiyadoss,
No.33, Sippoy Nagar,
Kumananchavadi, Poonamallee,
Chennai 600 056. .........Complainant.
//Vs//
VKM Motors,
Rep. by its Proprietor,
No.2/19, 1st Floor,
Mount Poonamallee High Road,
Kattupakkam, Chennai 600 056. ...Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.G.Mohanram, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : Mr.D.Rajesh, Advocate,
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 18.11.2022 in the presence of M/s.G.Mohanram Advocate, counsel for the complainant and Mr.D.Rajesh Advocate counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY MR.P.MURUGAN-MEMBER.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service in selling the product along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.600/- being the rear vien mirror cost and to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The Complainant a resident of Kumananchavadi, Poonamallee, Chennai, has stated that he bought as rear view Mirror for his KIA SELTOS Car from the Opposite Party who is a dealer in Car spare parts business in Chennai. On 12.1.2021 by paying Rs.600/- for which the opposite party has issued a memo for having received the cash mentioning the product but without any GST. The product was sold stating that it is an original KIA company product with a promise that it will suit the can and if not the same can be returned. The memo issued the Opposite Party does not bear any TIN Number or GST or business registration Number. On trying to fit the mirror he bought from Opposite Party for his car and to his dismay he found that it does not suit either and also not an original product from KIA Company. Therefore, he was compelled to buy a new Mirror from the KIA Company showroom by paying an amount of Rs.427/- and fit it. This made the Complainant disappointed and his request to get back the cash on return of the said mirror from the Opposite Party since it does not serve the purpose proved futile. Also, the treatment he met in Opposite Party’s shop when he approached for sales return and refund made mental agony to him. A proper legal notice to the transaction never got reply from the Opposite Party. Therefore, he preferred to file a case before this Commission for the deficiency in service and for unfair trade practice. His claim of proof in A1 & A2 submitted for perusal and record.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-
The Opposite Party in their defense version has denied all the allegations leveled by the Complainant and state that they have issued a memo dated 12.1.2021 to a unknown person who requested for the price of the product only. They neither supplied such product nor received cash for the product. They argue that they have practice of issuing only cash bills for the products sold with GST and it is all accountable. To prove their claim they have submitted their business sales register for the whole month of January 2021 and cash bill details of January 2021. The said 12.1.2021 dated memo was issued only as a quotation for the product and no supply was made to the Complainant. Their claim of proof P1 & P2 submitted for perusal and records.
The complainant has filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.6 were marked on their side. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 were filed by him.
Point for consideration:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in selling the product to the complainant has been proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point:1
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Bill issued by the VKM motors for the purchase of product dated 12.01.2021 was marked as Ex.A1;
KIA showroom bill was marked as Ex.A2;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 01.02.2021 was marked as Ex.A3;
Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A4;
Receipt for proof of service was marked as Ex.A5;
Photo copy of mirror was marked as Ex.A6;
On the side of opposite party the following documents were filed in support of their defence;
Sale Register for entire month of January 2021 was marked as Ex.B1;
Tax Invoice for the whole day i.e. 12.01.2021 was marked as Ex.B2;
The Complainant a resident of Kumananchavadi, Poonamallee, Chennai has bought a right rear view mirror for his “KIA SELTOS” Car from the Opposite Party on 12.01.2021 for a sum of Rs.600/- for which a memo was issued without GST. The product was sold with an assurance that it is an original KIA company product and will fit in the Car and if not it can be returned. Believing the assurance given by the Seller, the complainant bought the product and while fixing the same mirror which he could not at KIA Car showroom he was told that the product is not a original product of KIA make. As such he bought a new piece of mirror from the KIA Company showroom by paying cash and fit the same in his car. This made the complainant felt unfair trade practice by the Opposite party and issued a legal notice on 01.02.2021 which was received by the Opposite Party but no reply received. Therefore, he preferred a petition before this Commission seeking relief.
On the other hand, the Opposite Party vide their reply filed before this Commission, stated that they have not sold any such product to the Complainant on such date and an unknown person came to their shop and got a memo advice for the said product but no material supplied. They deny that no such product sold, that too without bill, without collecting GST. In proof they have produced the sales register for the entire month of January 2021 and details of Tax invoice for the whole day i.e. on 12.1.2021, denying the allegation. Thus, the complainant has sued the Opposite Party for the unfair trade product and the Opposite Party has denied the charge in whole.
The versions of both parties heard and perused. It is beyond doubt that the Complainant has bought the product from the Opposite Party on 12.1.2021 which does not serve the purpose and made the Complainant to buy a new Mirror again to fit in the car. The Opposite Party’s version that the 12.01.2021 dated memo is issued only for quotation purpose does not match their denial and also they never denied having issued the said memo. The proof as submitted by the Opposite Party does not speak answer to the question of transaction made. Therefore, this Commission concludes that the claim of the Complainant in viable.
The Complainant has stated that he has purchased the product, the rear view Mirror from the Opposite Party i.e. VKM Motors, Chennai-56 on 12.1.2021 and submitted the proof of purchases i.e. the memo for Rs.600/- issued by the Opposite Party in which it is clearly stated the description of the product SEATRAS Rear Mirror. The memo does not indicate that it is an estimate for the product.
The Complainant has produced a tax invoice for having purchased the same product from authorized dealer which proves that the main purpose i.e. to fit in the car. The version of the Complainant that the product does not match to fit in the Car is justifiable since he has purchased as new piece from the authorized dealer. Therefore, the claim of the Complainant proves right.
On the other hand, the Opposite Party has stated that they have issued only estimation memo and neither received cash nor supplied the material. In support they have produced the sales register for the month of January’2021 and Tax invoice for the whole day i.e. 22.01.2021. Although they have produced the document/argued that the sale was done, the product bought by the Complainant makes sense since there is a need and purchase.
The issue rose up only when the product does not fit in the Car. Once the product is unfit, a new piece was purchased paying cash second time. This makes cause for the case from the Complainant. The Opposite Party could not prove beyond doubt that he has not sold the product. Therefore, the benefit naturally goes to the Complainant’s favour. The Opposite Party ordered to refund Rs.600/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- cost.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against opposite party directing him;
a) To refund a sum of Rs.600/- (Rupees Six hundred only) the cost of the product to the complainant, on returning the product to oppostie party by complainant;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;
c) To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the Member to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29th day of November 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 12.01.2021 Bill issued by the VKM Motors Xerox
Ex.A2 .............. KIA showroom bill. Xerox
Ex.A3 01.02.2021 Legal notice issued by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A4 ............... Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A5 .......... receipt Xerox
Ex.A6 ................ Photo copy of mirror. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 ............. Sale Register for entire month of January 2021. Xerox
Ex.B2 ............ Tax Invoice for the whole day i.e.12.01.2021. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
