DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 20th day of March 2023
Filed on: 28/09/2016
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C C No. 549/2016
COMPLAINANT
C.J.Antony, S/o.Jacob, 15/2189 B, Cheriyaparambil, Beach Road, Thoppumpady, Mattanchery.
(By Adv.Renjith R., 2nd Floor, Vazhakootathil Building, Samskara Junction, Palarivattom)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Manager, Muthoot Motors Cochin No.10/1943 A, B, Karuvelipady Road, Thoppumpady, Kochi-682 005
(O.p rep. by Adv.Prinsun Philip, Kumaran Arcade, 1st Floor, Power House Road, Kochi-682 018)
F I N A L O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant states that he is finding his livelihood by running a tea shop and on 15.06.2016 he had approached the opposite party for purchasing a two wheeler Honda Shine bike and had paid an amount of Rs.71,950/- to the opposite party.
Subsequently the complainant states that he had received an old model of vehicle from the opposite party pertaining the year 2015 which the complainant had come to know only when he received the RC book from the Motor Vehicles Authorities. Soon on knowing the disparity, the complainant recognized that he had been cheated by the opposite party and therefore he had filed a complaint showing the details before the police authority, Thoppumppady.
Subsequently, on repeated requests of the complainant, the opposite party on 24.08.2016 agreed that the vehicle shall be replaced with a new one within 10 days and the complainant had agreed the condition and returned the old vehicle for getting the new one.
Thereafter, on 01.09.2016, the opposite party informed the complainant that the model of the vehicle which was given to the complainant is not available now and therefore asked to pay an additional amount of Rs.4,200/- for giving the latest model of the vehicle and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.4,200/- to the opposite party. Thereafter also, the opposite party had not given the vehicle to the complainant and therefore the complainant had to afford severe mental pain, hardships and approached this Commission seeking for orders for getting the amount back from the opposite party along with compensation of Rs.1 lakh and other reliefs.
2) Notice
Upon notice from this Commission the opposite party appeared and filed their version.
3) Version of the opposite party
The gist of the version is that the delivery of the vehicle was made after being satisfied by the complainant. There is no merit or basis in the claim of the complainant that he was promised by the opposite party that the vehicle is of 2016 Model vehicle, but was sold only a 2015 Model vehicle. The vehicle that was sold to the complainant was one manufactured in 2015. The complainant made repeated demands for a newer version of the vehicle. The opposite party had agreed to replace the vehicle with a new version to the complainant. Further, the opposite party informed the complainant that it would take a few days for further process, and to that effect the complainant had remitted an additional amount of Rs.4200/-.
The opposite party informed the complainant that the vehicle as per his choice is ready for delivery and asked him to report before the customer division of the opposite party for taking delivery of the same, on so many occasions the officials of the opposite party contacted the complainant over phone with this demand. But the complainant had willfully avoided such requests of the opposite party. All the other averments had been denied by the opposite party.
4) Evidence
The complainant had produced Exbt.A1 to A8 and the opposite party produced Exbt.B1 to B5 which are marked.
5) The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:
(1) Whether the complainant had experienced any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
(2) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?
(3) costs of the proceedings?
On going through the documents produced by the complainant, it is seen that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.71,000/- to the opposite party for purchasing the two wheeler Honda Shine bike, which is evident from Exbt.A1 Sale Receipt voucher dated 15.06.2016. As per Exbt.A2 it can be seen that the balance amount of Rs.950/- is paid by the complainant to the opposite party on 20.06.2016. Exbt.A3 goes to show that the complainant preferred a petition before the SHO, Thoppumpady on 08.08.2016. Exbt.A4 goes to show that the opposite party had given assurance to the complainant in black and white to the effect that “the opposite party needs 7 days to sell the vehicle of the complainant to find a buyer for the same”. It can also be seen that the opposite party had given an undertaking to the complainant in the form of a letter that the opposite party shall replace 2016 model vehicle to the complainant within 10 days which is executed on 24/08/2016. Exbt. A6 goes to show that the complainant had paid an additional amount of Rs.4,200/- to the opposite party on 01.09.2016.
It is evident from the Certificate of registration of vehicle KL-43-H-8601 that the vehicle was registered by Road Transport authority Mattanchery on 01.07.2016 the date of delivery of which is on 16.06.2016, the date of registration is on 24.06.2016 and year of manufacturing of which is 2015.
The documents produced by the opposite party goes to show that Exbt.B1 is details of booking particulars. Exbt.B2 is the statement of account. Exbt.B3 is Tax invoice for Rs.62,215/- dated 16.06.2016. Exbt.B4 is the sale certificate. Exbt.B5 is the payment receipt for Rs.4200/- dated 01.09.2020.
We have analysed all the documents and all other records produced from either side with the averments in the complaint and also with respect to the facts submitted by the opposite party in the version where it can be seen that the opposite party had given an old model (2015 model) vehicle to the complainant which the complainant had purchased from the opposite party on 15.06.2016. Subsequently, the statements of the complainant is that he had come to know the manufacturing date of the vehicle as 2015 only on receipt of the registration certificate from the Motor vehicle department. Even believing the arguments of the opposite party that the vehicle was sold to the complainant on and after his full satisfaction and inspection of the vehicle, itt stands as a clear proof from the complainant that Exbt.A4 which is given by the opposite party to the complainant and , so also Exbt.A5 which very clearly substantiate that the complainant and the opposite party had entered into an agreement wherein the opposite party had agreed that the new model of the vehicle shall be given within 10 days and charged Rs.4200/- in addition to the earlier payment of consideration and provide higher latest mode. When the entire above documentary proofs which are speaking evidences from the side of the complainant and point No. (i) stands in favour of the complainant and therefore the opposite party is duty bound to compensate the loss sustained to the complainant. Hence point No. (2) and (3) are also decided accordingly. Therefore the following orders are issued.
- The opposite party shall refund the amount of Rs.71,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 5.5% from 15.06.2016 to till the date of realization.
- The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.4200/- to the complainant from 01.09.2016 along with interest @5.5%
- The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs950/- to the complainant from 20.06.2016 with interest @5.5%
- Considering the nature of the case no compensation is ordered and an amount of Rs.10,000/- is ordered as cost of the proceedings which shall be paid by the opposite party to the complainant.
The above orders shall be complied with within, 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above amounts except cost of the proceedings shall carry 5.5% interest p.a. from date of receipt of amount by the opposite party paid by the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 20th day March 2023.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1: copy of sale receipt voucher dated 15.06.2016.
Exhibit A-2: copy of sale receipt voucher in which the complainant paid balance amount of Rs.950/- to the opposite party on 20.06.2016.
Exhibit A-3: copy of complaint filed before SHO, Thoppumpady dated 08.08.2016
Exhibit A-4: : Copy of letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 16.08.2016.
Exbt.A5 : copy of letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant on 24.08.2016.
Exbt.A6: copy of sale receipt voucher
Exbt.A7 : certificate of registration.
Exbt/A8 : copy of driving licence
Opposite party’s Evidence
Exbt.B1 :: copy of customer particulars issued by Muthoot Motors
Exbt.B2 :copy of statement of account
Exbt.B3 :: copy of customer particulars
Exbt.B4 : copy of tax invoice
Exbt.B5 : Copy of sale receipt voucher
