D.O.F:16/09/2019 D.O.O:14/01/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.178/2019
Dated this, the 14th day of January 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Raghavan Vellutholi
P.O Pakam,671316 : Complainant
(via) Bekal fort
Kasaragod
And
TATA Motors
KVR Dream Vehicles Pvt Ltd
Panalam, Naimarmoola : Opposite party
P.O Alampady,
Kasaragod – 671123
(Adv:K.A Lalan & Mary Savitha)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER
This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. complainant, Sri, Raghvan velutholi is the owner of an Alto Car, he entered into negotiations with KVR Dream vehicles Pvt Ltd and agreed to exchange his Alto LX car with a new Tiago Car. Opposite Party valued complainants car for Rs. 1 lakh and offered a new Tiago XE Brown car for ex- show room price of Rs. 4,36,479/-. and Opposite Party also agreed to give an additional discount of Rs. 15,000/-as exchange discount. The grievance of the complainant is that after paying the agreed amount complainant has constrained to pay an additional amount of Rs. 67030/-. Moreover the delivery of the vehicle is delayed for 16 days. And thus he constrained to hire a taxi for is daily usage especially in onam season and thus he had a financial loss of Rs.50,000/- towards taxi charges. Complainant faced difficulties without a car and thus he suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant is claiming a compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs from Opposite Party for his sufferings.
Advocate K.A Lalan appeared and filed version for Opposite Party. Opposite Party admits the negotiations between complainant and Opposite Party. According to the Opposite Party complainant and Opposite Party had discussions and negotiations in connection with the exchange of the complainant’s Alto car with a new Tiago XE brown car. Op further states that they valued the Alto LX car at Rs. 1 lakh and offered a new Tiago XE brown car for an ex-showroom price Rs. 4,36,479/- the price of the Tiago XE brown car was arrived after deducting the exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- and special addition offer of Rs.2000/-. Accessories of the car would have to be purchased over. He was made aware of the fact that delivery of the car would be immediately on payment of the on road price of the car. On 28/08/2019 itself complainant booked a base model Tiago XE car by paying Rs. 5000/- to the Opposite Party. Opposite Party further submits that on 31/08/2019 complainant through Sri Ram Finance Ltd credited an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- to Opposite Party’s account. An amount of Rs. 99,000/- was credited to the Opposite Party’s account as exchange value after deducting Rs. 1000/- towards hypothication cancellation fees to the bank. On 7/09/2019, complainant also paid an amount of Rs. 59522/- towards various for heads accessories fast tag registration and documentation Road tax and insurance. As part of Opposite Party’s insurance offer Opposite Party credited Rs. 10,169/- and had a balance of Rs. 13,500/- towards the delivery price of the car which was remitted only on 16/09/2019. Immediately upon receipt of the amount the car was delivered. Opposite Party denied the allegations of the complainant with respect to the insurance offer. Opposite Party further submits that this complaint is filed with a fraudulent intention to put pressure on the Opposite Party and budge for monitory bargain. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
Complainant filed proof affidavit with documents, which were marked as Ext A1 and A2. Ext A1 is the first information sheet Dt: 20/08/2019 issued by Opposite Party, Ext A2 is the newspaper, Mathrubhumi daily which published the advertisement of opposite party. The questions raised for consideration are
- Whether there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of
Opposite Party?
- Whether complainant is entitled for, compensation?
- If so what is the relief?
Issue No: 1
Complainant’s case is that he has not availed the entire offers declared by Opposite Party in advertisement Ext A2. Moreover there was 16 days delay in delivery of the car after paying the entire amount. Due to the delay in delivery of the car by Opposite Party complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony. Complainant is not cross examined by the Opposite Party. No evidence is adduced by the Opposite Party, heard the complainant. We anxiously perused the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant and the written version of Opposite Party. After filing a detailed version, Opposite Party has not taken any steps to prove their case. No evidence is adduced to the effect of delayed delivery of the vehicle and the price variation in the advertisement and Ext A1 statement. Complainant is eligible for the offers and discounts declared by Opposite Party in Ext A2 advertisement. Complainants grievance is that he has not availed those offers shown in Ext A2. it is true there is clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party. In the absence of rebuttal evidence issue No: 1 is found infavour of the complainant.
ISSUE NO:2
Complainant is influenced by the offers shown in the advertisement Ext A2. but in reality he has not availed the offers shown in Ext A2. The act of Opposite Party amounts to unfair trade practice which caused loss and agony to the complainant. Opposite Party is bound to compensate the loss suffered by complainant. Therefore complainant is entitled for compensation.
ISSUE NO: 3
As per the negotiations between complainant and Opposite Party, it is decided except complainants car he has to pay Rs. 3,70,000/-for new Tiago car, after deducting Rs. 99000/- as exchange value. Complainant has paid the said amount on 31/08/2018 to Opposite Party out of the insurance amount of Rs. 30,459/ complainant has to pay Rs. 79991 balance amount of Rs. 22,480 was company offer. But Opposite Party paid only Rs.18,168/- as insurance amount . In total complainant has to pay Rs. 380992 as per the negotiation, but he was constrained to pay Rs. 448022/-Thus he suffered a loss of Rs. 67030/-. Moreover 16 days delay occurred on delivery of the new car. We anxiously perused the materials on record before the commission. we are of the view that complainant is entitled for the refund of the additional amount paid by him with compensation and cost. Complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs. 2.50 lakhs, which is too high and excessive. We think an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is a sufficient compensation considering the facts in this case.
There for complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Party to refund Rs. 67030/- with Rs.15,000 (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) cost.
Time for compliance is 30 days from date of receipt of the copy of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibts
A1 – First Information sheet
A2 - Advertisement
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
