IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 31st day of July, 2017
Filed on 06.10.2015.
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.297/2015
Between
Complainant: Opposite parties:
Sri.Shaji.P.V 1. Popular Mega Motors(I) Pvt.Ltd
Padmavilasam VIII/123B, Kappakada
Charamangalam Punnapara North
Muhamma.P.O Alappuzha – 688 004
Alappuzha-688525 2. Porprietor, Arjun Motors
Thanky Junction
Kadakkarapally.P.O
Cherthala, Alappuzha
Cochin-682018
3. Shyamlal
Kizhakke Thayyil
Sindooram Road, Punnapara South Alappuzha.
4. The Manager
TATA Motors Ltd
4th Floor, Opposite Goldsouk mall
LIV 15 Tower, Vyttila, Cochin.
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant who is a driver purchased a TATA IRIS passenger vehicle for his self employment from the 1st opposite party on 15.6.2015. For the purpose of purchasing the vehicle the complainant at first approached the 2nd opposite party and paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- in advance. There after the 3rd opposite party approached the complainant and assured to make the arrangements for getting the loan and the complainant entrusted Rs.10,000/- to the 3rd opposite party for remitting in the bank and the 3rd opposite party has also collected an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the additional fittings. According to the complainant there was a difference of Rs.1482/- between the amount charged for extra fittings and the price prevailed in the open market. The complainant further alleged that the 1st opposite party assured an offer of Rs.10,000/- in case the complainant or any other person who is included in the ration card of the complainant have an autorikshaw and the complainant produced the relevant documents to get that offer also. But the opposite party failed to provide the assured offer. The opposite parties have charged Rs.2,88,775 without deducting the amounts collected from the complainant also not provide the assured offer of Rs.10,000/-to the complainant. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
2. Notice were served to the opposite parties. 1st opposite party filed version. 3rd opposite party filed memo stating that they are adopting the contention of 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party and 4th opposite party did not appear before the Forum hence set exparte.
2. Version of 1st opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. Complainant purchased the vehicle No. KL-32/H5765 Magic IRIS from this Opposite party through 2nd Opposite party, engaged by the complainant himself and the 2nd Opposite party has no business connection with this Opposite party had never demanded Rs. 50,000/- or Rs.10,000/- from the complainant directly or through any of it’s staff as alleged. The opposite party had duly delivered the vehicle to the complainant with temporary registration after remitting Road Tax for five years and effecting insurance. All the amounts remitted by the complainant to this Opposite party had issued receipts then and there and this opposite party has no knowledge regarding payment if any made to 2nd opposite party. This opposite party had arranged for incentives and discounts to the complainant for changing from 3 wheeler to 4 wheeler and all the bills were issued to the complainant after obtaining consent regarding prices of all accessories and the allegation of price variation is absolutely false and added only for the purpose of suiting this vexatious complaint. However, the complainant had no right for exchange bonus as claimed since the old vehicle bearing Regn. No. KL-32C/7326, Autorikshaw is not in the name of the complainant but in the name of his wife. Thus it is submitted if the complainant had paid any amount as advance or otherwise to the 2nd Opposite party it is not binding on this opposite party and the allegation of payment to the 3rd opposite party is absolutely false and if the complainant had paid any amount he would have obtained receipt for the same. Since the complainant had not produced any receipt for the same, that allegation is absolutely false and is alleged only for the purpose of unjust enrichment and it is abundantly clear that the complainant is making such allegations is also making coercive attempt for making unlawful gain by impleading 4th opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to get any of the relief as prayed in the complainant and hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext.A1to Ext.A7. Sales manager of 1st opposite party was examined as RW1 and documents Ext.B1 to B4 were marked.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant, the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for?
5. Issues 1 and 2:-
The case of the complainant is that the complainant had approached the 2nd opposite party for the purpose of buying a TATA IRIS passenger vehicle and paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as advance amount but the 1st opposite party has not deducted the said amount. The complainant further alleged that the complainant had paid a total amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the 3rd opposite party for remitting Rs. 10,000/- in the bank and Rs.10,000/- for extra fittings and these amounts were also not deducted by the 1st opposite party. The complainant further alleged that the 1st opposite party assured an exchange offer of Rs. 10,000/- and this exchange offer was also not provided to the complainant hence this complaint.
The specific case of the complainant is that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to 2nd opposite party and Rs.20,000/- to 3rd opposite party but these amounts were not deducted from the total cost of the vehicle and also the assured exchange offer of Rs.10,000/- was not given to the complainant.
The complainant produced 7 documents inorder to substantiate his allegation which were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A7. Ext.A1 is the copy of RC Book TATA MAGIC IRIS bearing No. KL.32 H/5765. Ext.A2 is cash bill dated 30/5/2015 issued by the Arjun Motors. Ext.A3 is the estimate dated 28/9/2015. Ext.A4 is the copy of RC Book of KL.32 C/7326. Ext.A5 is the copy of Ration Card. Ext.A6 is the copy of Tax invoice dated 31.5.2015. Ext.A7 is the statement of accounts. From the documents It is clear that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to 2nd opposite party as advance and this amount was not deducted from the total cost of the vehicle. But no document is produced to substantiate the allegation that Rs.20,000/- was given to 3rd opposite party. The next point is to be considered is that whether they have given the assured exchange bonus or upgrade bonus to the complainant. Though the opposite parties contented that they have provided the said offer to the complainant and made a total discount of Rs. 27,500/- and produced Ext.B2 inorder to prove the same. But from the said document we can’t say that under head these deductions were made. The documents produced by the 1st opposite party would not show that they have provided the assured exchange/ upgrade bonus to the complainant. The complainant purchased the vehicle honestly believing the assurance of the opposite parties and non compliance of such earlier promise amounts to deficiency in service. Since the 1st opposite party has failed to provide the assured exchange offer to the complainant they have committed deficiency in service. The complainant failed to produce the documents to show that he had entrusted the 3rd opposite party Rs.10,000/- for extra fittings and Rs.10,000/- for remitting in the bank. So we can’t held 3rd opposite party liable for any deficiency in service. The 1st opposite party admitted that they have charged a excess price of Rs.3027/ - from the complainant and it also should be refunded. On verifying the entire evidence on record we can’t see any deficiency in service on the part of the 4th opposite party so we can’t held 4th opposite party liable for any deficiency in service.
In the result the complaint is allowed partly. 2nd opposite party is directed to refund Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant with 9% interest from 30.5.2015 to till realization. 1st opposite party is directed to refund the excess amount collected Rs.3027/- with 9% interest from 31.5.2015 till realization. The 1st opposite parties are further directed to provide the upgrade/ exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) towards compensation. No order as to costs. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2017.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier(Member)
APPENDIX:
Evidence of the Complainant:
PW1 - Shaji.P.V
Ext.A1 - Copy of Registration Certificate Book
Ext.A2 - Cash Bill dated.30/5/2015
Ext.A3 - Estimate dated. 28/9/2015
Ext.A4 - Copy of RC.Book KL32 C/7326.
Ext.A5 - Copy of Ration Card.
Ext.A6 - Copy of TAX INVOICE dated 31/5/2015
Ext.A7 - Copy of the statement of Accounts.
Evidence of the opposite party:
RW1 - Subash.A (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of Tax Invoice dtd. 31/5/2015
Ext.B2 - Copy of Delivery format.
Ext.B3 - Copy of Delivery Note.
Ext.B4 - Copy of Customer Satisfaction Form.
//True copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by: Br/-
Comped . by:
