IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

        Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

   Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member

CC No. 69/16

Monday the 21^st  day of November, 2016

Complainant                                     : Prasad.D,

                                                             S/o Damodaran,

                                                             Prasad Bhavan,

                                                             Vattukulam PO,

                                                              Kadappoor, Kanakkary village,

                                                             Kottayam686596

                                                            (Adv. Arun.G)

                                                Vs.

Opposite parties                               : 1) Indus Motors Co.Pvt Ltd

                                                                 Rep by its Managing Director,

                                                                 Indus House, PB No.923,

                                                                 Chakkorathukulam, West Hill,                                            

                                                                     Calicut-673 005.

                                                              2) Indus Motors Co.Ltd., rep by its

                                                                      Managing Director, One way

                                                                      Junction, Market PO,

                                                                      Muvattupuzha.

                                                              3) Manager,

                                                                   Indus Motors Co.Pvt.Ltd.,

                                                                   Chethimattam, Pala-686575.

                                                              4) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd

                                                                   Reptd by its Managing Director,

                                                                       1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant

                                                                       Kunj, New Delhi-110 070

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

The case of the complainant filed on 19/2/16 is as follows.

The complainant on 22-4-15 purchased a Maruti Swift VXI Car, manufactured by the  4^th opposite party, from the 3^rd opposite party by paying Rs.5,45,525/-.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the branch office of the 1^st opposite party.  According to the complainant initially he had booked RITZ vxi Sup. White.  But there after the second and third opposite party informed that the said colour is not available.  So he had opted for the present car.  The sales person explained that only statutory payments as insurance charge, road tax, registration charges, vehicle cess charges will have to be paid by the complainant.  But at the time of delivery.  Opposite party 1 to 3 had collected an amount of Rupees 6000/- as handling charges.  The family members are  eagerly waiting to see the arrival of new car and he is also mentally prepared to receive the delivery.  So at the time of delivery the above said amount was paid under compulsion.  According to the complainant the opposite parties are having no right or authority to collect logistic and handling charges.  They also collected as amount of Rs.780/- without apportioning to any of the heads.  Thereafter he had contacted the 1^st opposite party on several times, but they have not cared to settle the matter.  And the above said act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint.

Evenafter accepting the notice opposite party 1 to 3 has not cared to appear or file version.

Forth opposite party filed version admitting the purchase of the vehicle from the 3^rd opposite party by the complainant.  According to the 4^th opposite party they has not collected any amount or handling charge from the complainant and there was no transaction between the complainant and 4^th opposite party.  The 4^th opposite party sells the vehicles to its dealers including opposite party 1 to 3, who sell the vehicle to the complainant under their own invoice and sale certificate as per Motor Vehicle Act.  The opposite party 1 to 3 are separate and independent legal entity to carry on their business of sale of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicle.  And 4^th opposite party is not vicariously liable for the act of opposite party 1 to 3.  According to the 4^th opposite party there is no cause of action against them and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of 4^th opposite party.  And 4^th opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

Points for considerations are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A6 documents.

Point  No.1

          The case of the complainant is that  the opposite parties had illegally collected Rs.6000/- as handling charges and Rs.780/- without apportioning to any of the heads.  Complainant produced the copy of the tax invoice dated 17-4-15 and same is marked as Ext.A1.  From Ext.A1 it can be understood that the price of the vehicle is Rs.5,45,525/-.  From Ext.A2 it can be understood that opposite party 1 to 3 had collected Rs.6000/- as handling charge.  Ext.A3 series are the cash receipts issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  From Ext.A3 series documents it can be found that in total, opposite party had collected Rs.6,16,170/- ie they had collected Rs.870/- in excess amount than the amount stated in Ext.A2.  Ext.A4 is the lawyers notice issued by the complainant.  Ext.A4 notice is not disputed by the opposite parties  by sending reply.  According to the 4^th opposite party they had not collected any amount from the complainant.  The complainant has no allegation that 4^th opposite party had collected any amount.  In the absence of contra evidence we are constrained to rely on the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A6 documents.  In our view, the act of opposite party 1 to 3, collected Rs.6000/- as handling charge and Rs.870/- in excess, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Due to the said act of opposite party 1 to 3 complainant had suffered much mental pain and loss.  So he is to be compensated.

Point No.2

          In view of the findings in Point No.1 complaint is allowed.

In the result,

1. The opposite party  1 to 3 are directed to  refund Rs.6000/-, which was collected as handling charge and Rs.870/-, collected in excess amount, to the complainant.
2. The opposite party 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- as cost to the complainant.

The Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21^st day of November, 2016.

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President             Sd/-

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member     Sd/-

Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member          Sd/-

Appendix

Documents of complainant

Ext.A1-Photocopy of tax/vehicle invoice dtd 17/4/15

Ext.A2-Payment details from 3^rd OP

Ext.A3- Series of Cash receipts (4 Nos)

Ext.A4-Copy of lawyer’s notice dt 9/12/15

Ext.A5-Series of postal receipt (4 Nos)

Ext.A6-Series of AD cards(4 Nos)

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.(I/C)