ABT Maruthi vs SAKTHIVEL

THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.3.2013 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission'') in FA No. 573/2011, Sakthivel v. M/s. Maruthi Suzuki India Limited & Anr., vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 20.4.2011 in consumer complaint No. 354/2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, partly allowing the consumer complaint, was modified. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 1 who is a retired additional Superintendent of Police and a senior citizen, booked a Swift Dezire VD IBS VI/Pearl 1 Metallic Arctic White car by paying an amount of Rs. 50,000 with the petitioner/OP -2 on 16.10.2009. He further paid a sum of Rs. 4 lakh on 7.4.2010 and Rs. 2,25,320 on 8.4.2010, making it a total of Rs. 6,75,320 including the booking amount. The car No. TN 37 BH 5215 was delivered to him on 14.4.2010. As per the complainant, the total invoice price of the car is Rs. 6,69,816 consisting of the following items, although he was made to pay a sum of 6,75,320.

The complainant has alleged that he asked the OPs to pay him back the excess amount charged of Rs. 5,504 and interest on the booking amount of Rs. 50,000. On his insistence, petitioner/OP 2 sent him a cheque for Rs. 2,285 dated 15.4.2010, without any covering letter. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs and then filed consumer complaint in question, requesting that excess amount of Rs. 5,504, a compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000 for mental agony and Rs. 5000 as cost of litigation should be paid to him.

IN their written reply filed by the petitioner/OP, it was stated that the following details were given to the complainant regarding the total amount payable for the car.

The amounts at first five items in the above table, make a total of Rs. 6,69,816, which is the invoice amount as mentioned in the complaint. The complainant is claiming that the amount charged on the other items should be refunded to him. On the other hand, petitioner/OP2 stated that in order to maintain cordial relationship, the petitioner sent a cheque of Rs. 2500 dated 6.8.2010 to the complainant, covering the last five items, i.e., inspection charges, water washing charges, stock -yard rent, security charges and incidental charges, as mentioned in the table drawn above. The complainant refused to accept this amount. Further, the petitioner/OP paid a sum of Rs. 2,285 by cheque dated 15.4.2010 as interest on the booking amount and this fact has been admitted in the complaint itself. The petitioner/OP has further stated that road safety tax, service charge, charges for registration, etc. have been paid to the Registering Authority.

THE District Forum, after taking into account the evidence of the parties, directed the petitioner/OP -2 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500 to the complainant, as already agreed to by them. However, on appeal filed before the State Commission by the complainant, the said Commission ordered that a sum of Rs. 5,504 should be paid to the complainant along with Rs. 25,000 as compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 2,500. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

DURING proceedings before this Commission, the petitioner moved an application for deletion of respondent No. 2, M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. from the array of parties, and the said application was allowed. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/OP 2 stated that they had given the exact details of the amounts charged from the complainant on various items. Certain amount had been paid to the registering authority as well. However, as a gesture of goodwill, they decided to return a sum of Rs. 2500 which was not accepted by the complainant for the reasons best known to him. The District Forum had also upheld the stand taken by the petitioner/OP. However, the learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 1 stated that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law and should be upheld. The State Commission had rightly ordered the refund of excess amount of Rs. 5,504 along with compensation of Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 25,000 as litigation cost.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

THE main grievance contained in the consumer complaint says that the petitioner charged an excess amount of Rs. 5,504 from the complainant for the delivery of the vehicle and also, the petitioner/OP 2 was required to pay interest on the booking amount of Rs. 50,000 for the said vehicle. It has been stated in the complaint itself that a cheque of Rs. 2285 dated 15.4.2010 was received by the complainant, which was presumably meant for the interest on the booking amount. Regarding the payment of Rs. 5504 the petitioner/OP -2 have given exact details of various items for which the said amount was charged. This includes payment of road safety tax, registration charges, diesel charges for taking the vehicle for registration, washing charges, stock yard rent, security charges, etc. When the complainant took up the issue for return of Rs. 5,504, the petitioner offered to refund Rs. 2,500 on account of inspection charges, water washing charges, stockyard rent, security charges and incidental charges. The District Forum after carrying out a detailed analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, brought out that the Tamilnadu Transport Department had collected a sum of Rs. 1,900 as road tax, registration charges etc. It is clear, therefore, that this money is not payable to the complainant at all. Further, some amount was spent on expenses on diesel and driver, etc. for taking the vehicle for registration. The complainant has not been able to prove by any means as to how he is entitled for refund of amount of Rs. 5,504. The State Commission while passing the impugned order, have not given any cogent reasons for allowing a sum of Rs. 5,504 to the complainant. The order passed by the State Commission, therefore, suffers from a grave irregularity, as no proper explanation has been given for refund of the amount as asked for by the complainant. On the other hand the order passed by the District Forum reflects a correct analysis of the facts and circumstances on record and the said Forum rightly concluded that a sum of Rs. 2,500 may be paid to the complainant, as already offered by the petitioner. In view of discussion above, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside. The order passed by the District Forum is upheld and further action be taken by the parties accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.