BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 77/2012 Filed on 09.03.2012
Dated : 15.11.2012
Complainant :
Vilasini, W/o Chandran, Chaithanya Nivas, Ayakudi, Kadakkavur P.O, Chirayinkeezh, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Anuroop. V.S)
Opposite party :
The Manager, Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd., Cordial Towers, Near St. Mary's School, Kesavadasapuram Road, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. P.K. Aboobacker)
This O.P having been heard on 27.10.2012, the Forum on 15.11.2012 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT
The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that complainant purchased a Maruti EECO 7 seater vehicle from the opposite party on 04.03.2011 for an on road price of Rs. 3,55,118/- under exchange offer, that as per the offer the vehicle No. KL-01 U 5833 Maruti Omni van belonged to the complainant has been sold to the opposite party for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/-, that complainant decided to purchase the aforesaid Maruti Eeco 7 seater from the opposite party only because of the reason that the opposite party offered Rs. 20,000/- as total benefits and accessories like foot step, crash guard, basic, seat cover and body cover on free of cost, that after deduction of the exchange value of the old vehicle complainant remitted Rs. 2,65,110/- towards the price of the new vehicle, that the on road price of the new vehicle was Rs. 3,55,118/-, that as per the advertisement given by the opposite party published in Malayala Manorama daily dated 02.03.2011 complainant decided to purchase the aforesaid vehicle from the opposite party, that as per the said advertisement opposite party is bound to give benefits of Rs. 20,000/- towards exchange value of the old vehicle or on road price of new vehicle, that the sales officials of the opposite party cheated the complainant by not giving the benefits offered by the opposite party, that opposite party issued documents regarding payment of cash in which it is found that instead of reducing exchange value of Rs. 90,000/- from the road value of Rs. 3,55,118/-, an amount of Rs. 80,000/- is found deducted, thereby opposite party has realized Rs. 10,000/- in excess from the complainant. Though complainant made several requests to opposite party to refund the said amount, opposite party made an evasive attitude towards the complainant. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to refund Rs. 30,000/- to complainant along with compensation and costs.
Opposite party filed version contending interalia that complainant had booked a Maruti Eeco 7 seater vehicle from the opposite party on 04.03.2011 for an on road price of Rs. 3,55,118/- under exchange of her 2001 model Omni van, that complainant sold her old vehicle to the opposite party under exchange scheme for a total consideration of Rs. 90,000/- which was agreed to be adjusted by the opposite party in the price of the new model vehicle, that opposite party has not announced any such offer to the public or to the complainant that they will provide the accessories free of cost to the newly purchased vehicle under exchange scheme, that the said allegation is made by the complainant only for the purpose of this case and to get advantage of it, that the exchange value of Rs. 90,000/- of the old vehicle was deducted from the on road price of Rs. 3,55,118/- of the new vehicle and complainant had remitted Rs. 2,65,110/- by cash and took delivery of the new vehicle. The value of Rs. 90,000/- of the old vehicle was correctly deducted from the value of the new vehicle. The accessories were ordered by the complainant on 04.03.2012 as per the order booking form. The said accessories were purchased by complainant on 05.03.2011 and opposite party had collected only Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of the said accessories giving a discount of Rs. 3,950/- to the complainant. Complainant as an after thought had issued a letter dated 02.02.2012 after a period of 11 months to the opposite party raising the allegations mentioned in the complaint stating that opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs. 10,000/- from her. On receipt of the said letter opposite party had caused to issue a reply dated 16.02.2012 to the complainant stating all the facts. After filing of the complaint, complainant amended the complaint and opposite party filed an additional version to that amendment, that opposite party never agreed to provide the alleged Rs. 20,000/- as total benefits at any point of time as alleged in the amended complaint, that before the amendment of the case complainant had not raised any contention regarding the alleged loss of benefits, that after filing chief affidavit and cross examination she came to know about her possible defeat in the case and therefore she had incorporated the said additional para changing her basis case by creating a cooked up story, that complainant had availed all available benefits at the time of purchase and she is now estopped from raising the alleged contention. Complainant is not entitled to any sort of reliefs as prayed for. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
(i) Whether the opposite party has collected excess amount from the complainant?
(ii) Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
(iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and costs?
In support of the complaint complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P7. In rebuttal, opposite party has not filed affidavit. Opposite party has marked Ext. D1.
Points (i) to (iii):- Initially the complaint was filed for refund of Rs. 10,000/- along with compensation and costs. Thereafter on amending the complaint, complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as refund. There is no point in dispute that complainant had purchased a Maruti Eeco 7 seater vehicle from the opposite party on 04.03.2011 for on road price of Rs. 3,55,118/- under exchange of her old Omni van. There is no point in dispute that the old Maruti van was sold to the opposite party under exchange scheme for a total consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. There is no point in dispute that the exchange value was agreed to be adjusted by the opposite party in the price of the new vehicle. Originally the case was filed by the complainant on raising the allegation that opposite party has collected an excess amount of Rs. 10,000/- since as per Ext. P4 an amount of Rs. 80,000/- was deducted from the on road price of new vehicle instead of reducing the exchange value of Rs. 90,000/- from it. Complainant has produced Ext. P1 to P7. On amending the complaint, complainant claimed an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards the benefits offered by the opposite party under exchange value of the old vehicle. Ext. P1 is the copy of the order booking form. As per Ext. P1 the on road price of Eeco 7 seater is Rs. 3,55,118/-. In the booking amount column the amount mentioned is Rs. 2,65,110/-. It is seen that complainant booked the new vehicle under exchange of her old model Omni 2001. A perusal of Ext. P1 reveals further that accessories such as foot step, crash guard, basic, seat cover and body cover will be fitted as per order given by the customer. Ext. P2 is the copy of the delivery receipt stating exchange value of Rs. 90,000/- including loyalties. Ext. P3 is the copy of the receipt dated 04.03.2011 issued by opposite party in the name of the complainant for Rs. 2,65,110/- towards booking payment against Eeco 7 seater A/C vehicle. Ext. P4 is the copy of the price calculation statement issued by opposite party. A perusal of Ext. P4 shows that in the worksheet column Rs. 80,000/- is deducted from Rs. 3,55,118/-, thereby the balance comes to Rs. 2,75,118/-. It is recorded : in the price column Rs. 3,18,161/-, insurance: Rs. 10,742/-, extended warranty : Rs. 4,125/-, road tax : Rs. 19,090/- and registration fee Rs. 500/- and service charge including transit insurance, driver expense and incidental expense : Rs. 2,500/-. On road price of the model Eeco 7seater is Rs. 3,55,118/-. Ext. P5 is the copy of the undertaking given by the customer. As per Ext. P5 it is seen declared by the customer that she booked the above referred car with the aforesaid dealer after having received full information and prior knowledge regarding tentative period or delivery by paying Rs. 2,65,110/- as an advance booking amount which shall be settled against the final price of car at the time of delivery. Ext. P6 is the copy of the reply sent by opposite party to the complainant's notice dated 02.02.2012. Ext. P7 is the newspaper Malayala Manorama daily dated 2011 March 2. Ext. D1 is the copy of the advocate notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party claiming a refund of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite party. The very allegation in the original complaint is that opposite party had collected excess amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant. In this context it is to be noted that complainant has remitted only Rs. 2,65,110/- towards booking payment against Eeco 7 seater vehicle vide Ext. P3. Admittedly the on road price of the vehicle is Rs. 3,55,118/- by Ext. P1. Further the exchange value of the old vehicle as per Ext. P2 is Rs. 90,000/-. Since opposite party has assessed exchange value of the old vehicle for Rs. 90,000/-, the balance amount to be paid by the complainant comes to Rs. 2,65,118/-. By Ext. P3 complainant has remitted an amount of Rs. 2,65,110/-, thereby it is crystal clear that opposite party has received Rs. 2,65,110/- after deduction of the exchange value of Rs. 90,000/- from the on road price of Rs. 3,55,118/-. According to complainant as per the price list by Ext. P4 in the worksheet column opposite party deducted an amount of Rs. 80,000/- instead of reducing exchange value of Rs. 90,000/-, thereby the stand of the complainant is that opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs. 10,000/-. According to opposite party it is on the basis of what is written in the worksheet column that complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on the presumption that opposite party has deducted Rs. 80,000/- only instead of reducing Rs. 90,000/- from the road value of Rs. 3,55,118/-. The very stand of the opposite party is that admittedly, exchange value is Rs. 90,000/-. After deduction of the said amount of Rs. 90,000/- from on road price of the new vehicle, the balance would come to Rs. 2,65,118/- and complainant had remitted only Rs. 2,65,110/-, thereby the allegation raised by the complainant against the opposite party that opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs. 10,000/- is baseless. On perusal of records Exts. P1 to P4 we are of the view that opposite party has collected only the balance amount after deduction of Rs. 90,000/- under exchange value of the old vehicle from the on road price of the new vehicle. Complainant has failed to establish that opposite party has collected excess amount than those prescribed in Ext. P1. Further before amending the complaint, the allegation of the complainant was in connection with the aforesaid excess amount only. After amending the complaint, complainant has claimed additional benefits of Rs. 20,000/- towards exchange value of the old vehicle. Opposite party filed additional version contending that the said allegation is only a cooked up story. Counsel for opposite party argued that even in Ext. D1 advocate notice complainant has no case that she is entitled to get any other benefits apart from the alleged claim of Rs. 10,000/-. On perusal of Ext. D1 it is seen that the crux of Ext. D1 notice is centered around the alleged excess amount of Rs. 10,000/- collected by the opposite party. There is no whisper with regard to any additional benefits offered by opposite party nor is there any allegation raised against the opposite party that opposite party had not allowed the assured offer to the complainant. As per Ext. P7 newspaper advertisement it is seen that opposite party has offered total benefits worth Rs. 20,000/- under exchange scheme for the purchase of Eeco. The very contention of the opposite party is that it is after considering all the benefits offered by the opposite party, the exchange value of the old vehicle is fixed at Rs. 90,000/-, thereby according to opposite party complainant is not entitled to claim any additional benefits as already decided by parties as in Ext. P2. Opposite party has pointed out the conditions mentioned in Ext. P2. A perusal of Ext. P2 reveals that Rs. 90,000/- is fixed as exchange value including loyalty bonus. It is the stand of the opposite party that all assured benefits are considered while fixing the exchange value of old vehicle by both the parties. It is to be noted by Ext. P5 that complainant has made declaration that she booked the above car with the aforesaid dealer after having received full information and prior knowledge regarding the tentative period or delivery by paying Rs. 2,65,110/- as an advance booking amount which shall be settled against the final price of car at the time of delivery. Further complainant has never raised any claim in connection with additional benefits if any in the original complaint or in the advocate notice dated 02.02.2012 issued by the complainant to the opposite party by Ext. D1, thereby we find much force in the argument of the opposite party that opposite party has fixed the exchange value of Rs. 90,000/- after considering all the benefits assured by the opposite party. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to establish the case on merits. Complaint has no merits at all which deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of November 2012.
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 77/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Vilasini
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of order booking form
P2 - Copy of delivery receipt issued by Maruti True Value
P3 - Copy of receipt dated 04.03.2011 issued by opposite party.
P4 - Copy of price calculation statement issued by opposite party.
P5 - Copy of undertaking given by the customer
P6 - Copy of reply sent by opposite party to complainant's notice
dated 02.02.2012.
P7 - Malayala Manorama daily dated 2011 March 2.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Copy of advocate notice sent by complainant to opposite party
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
