By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case of complainant is that the respondent made to believe that they are the authorized dealer of Suzuki Motor Cycle India Pvt. Ltd. at Chalakudy and a vehicle will be sold for cost Rs.69,500/-. A brochure proving the dealership has also given to complainant. So the complainant booked one Suzuki GS 150 R vehicle on 24.5.2010 by payment of Rs.25,000/-. The respondent arranged finance for the balance amount. Later the vehicle was delivered to complainant. After it was found that the authorized dealer is Aluva Motors situated at Aluva and Rs.840/- was taken by respondent in excess. It is also found that there was irregularity in arranging the finance for the vehicle. When enquired with the respondent it was agreed that he will repay the amount but not repaid so far. The vehicle purchased by him has to take for service maintenance to Aluva since there is no authorized service centre at Chalakudy. This is causing very much hardship to complainant. Since the complainant is residing at Chalakudy he has purchased the vehicle from respondent under the words of respondent that the authorized service will obtain at Chalakudy. These acts of the respondent are unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter of respondent is to the effect that the respondent has arranged finance to complainant from Eco Mark Finance Co. Thrissur. There are no other transactions between respondent and complainant. This respondent introduced to complainant the authorized dealer of Suzuki Motor Cycle at Aluva. The complainant has purchased the vehicle from Aluva Motors. The respondent did not take any money from complainant. This respondent did not make to believe that the respondent has dealership to Suzuki Motor Cycle India Pvt. Ltd. The respondent did not try to mislead the complainant. The amount claimed in the complaint is baseless. The complainant is not at all liable to get any reliefs from respondent. There is no consumer relationship between the parties. There was no deficiency in service from this respondent. It is incorrect that there is no service centre at Chalakudy. The respondent did not make to believe that service to vehicle will get at Chalakudy. Hence dismiss.
3. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether the respondent committed any unfair trade practice
to complainant?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence adduced consists of oral testimony of PW1, RW1 and Exts. P1 to P5 and Ext. R1.
5. Points: The complaint is filed alleging unfair trade practice committed by respondent against complainant. It is the allegation of complainant that he was made to believe by respondent that the respondent is the authorized dealer of Suzuki Motor Cycle India Pvt. Ltd. and a motor cycle will be available on payment of Rs.69,500/-. The complainant paid Rs.25,000/- on 24.5.2010 and took the vehicle. It is the case that for the balance amount finance has been arranged by respondent. The vehicle was delivered to complainant by respondent but he was found that Rs.840/- was taken by respondent in excess and there was irregularity in arranging the finance. So it is the case of complainant that the respondent committed unfair trade practice by making to believe him that the respondent is the authorized dealer of Suzuki Motor Cycle India Pvt. Ltd. and also taken excess amount. The respondent contended that there is no such transaction between the complainant and respondent. He only arranged finance with a finance company in Thrissur.
6. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5 documents marked on his side. It is his definite case that he has purchased the vehicle from respondent. He strongly denied that the vehicle was delivered by Aluva Motors. It is also his case that the insurance was arranged by respondent. Ext. P2 is a piece of paper containing some accounts produced by PW1 in which the seal of Young Motors, Chalakudy is therein. The respondent has no answer why such a piece of paper comes to the hands of complainant. It is also the case of respondent that Ext. P1 amount returned to complainant. It is his pleadings that he simply arranged finance to complainant and there are no other transaction between PW1 and RW1, the respondent. But Ext. P1 would show that the respondent had accepted Rs.25,000/- on 24.5.10 from complainant. It is the case of complainant that he has paid Rs.25,000/- to respondent on 24.5.10 as booking amount. Ext. P1 would prove the same. The respondent denied the transaction in the counter but in the box taken the stand that this amount has returned. But there is no document at all to prove the same.
7. It is the allegation of PW1 that the respondent made to believe that they are the authorized dealer of Suzuki Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and given brochure of the same. But the respondent seriously opposed this version of PW1. But Ext. P3 would prove that the respondent has given Ext. P3 to complainant to mislead him that the Young Motors is the dealer of Suzuki Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Ext. P5 would also show that the respondent Shiju Antony was worked as an agent for insuring the vehicle. Ext. P3 establishes the case of complainant. All these would lead to the conclusion that the respondent committed unfair trade practice.
8. The respondent is examined as RW1 and he deposed that he has no dealership with Suzuki Company. He also deposed that it is incorrect that in the brochure it is stated that he is the dealer. So RW1 denied that there is no brochure stating him as dealer of Suzuki Company and he has no dealership with Suzuki Company. Ext. P3 would show that the respondent is a dealer of Suzuki Company.
9. It is the case of PW1 that since there is no authorized service centre at Chalakudy, he has to take the vehicle at Aluva or Thrissur for servicing. It is causing difficulty to him. According to him these hardships also caused due to unfair trade practice of RW1. It is his case that Rs.840/- was taken by respondent in excess and also taken Rs.1358/-. The grand total as per quotation form is Rs.68,669/-. As per Ext. P4 the on road price in Thrissur is Rs.68,017/-. So there would be an excess collection of Rs.652/-. So there is no evidence to show that Rs.1358/- has misappropriated. In these circumstances the complainant is entitled to get back the excess amount of Rs.652/-. He is also entitled to get compensation for the unfair trade practice committed by respondent. He has to take the vehicle for service to Aluva or Thrissur.
10. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to return Rs.652/- (Rupees six hundred and fifty two only) and pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 2nd day of April 2012.
