Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Platino Classic VS Thomas Varghese

    Uploaded by

    Firdouse C.P.
    1) This document is the written submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 1 in a revision petition filed by Platino Classic Motors (India) Pvt Ltd against an order of the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. 2) The Commission had dismissed an appeal filed by Platino Classic Motors, directing them to refund Rs. 28,000 plus interest and compensation of Rs. 10,000 to Respondent No. 1 for illegally charging a handling fee when Respondent No. 1 purchased a BMW. 3) Respondent No. 1 argues that the revision petition should be dismissed as Platino Classic Motors has not proved their entitlement to collect the handling charges and such charges constitute unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Platino Classic VS Thomas Varghese

    Uploaded by

    Firdouse C.P.
    43 views7 pages
    1) This document is the written submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 1 in a revision petition filed by Platino Classic Motors (India) Pvt Ltd against an order of the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. 2) The Commission had dismissed an appeal filed by Platino Classic Motors, directing them to refund Rs. 28,000 plus interest and compensation of Rs. 10,000 to Respondent No. 1 for illegally charging a handling fee when Respondent No. 1 purchased a BMW. 3) Respondent No. 1 argues that the revision petition should be dismissed as Platino Classic Motors has not proved their entitlement to collect the handling charges and such charges constitute unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

    Original Description:

    written submissions before NCDRC

    Original Title

    PLATINO CLASSIC VS THOMAS VARGHESE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) This document is the written submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 1 in a revision petition filed by Platino Classic Motors (India) Pvt Ltd against an order of the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. 2) The Commission had dismissed an appeal filed by Platino Classic Motors, directing them to refund Rs. 28,000 plus interest and compensation of Rs. 10,000 to Respondent No. 1 for illegally charging a handling fee when Respondent No. 1 purchased a BMW. 3) Respondent No. 1 argues that the revision petition should be dismissed as Platino Classic Motors has not proved their entitlement to collect the handling charges and such charges constitute unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views7 pages

    Platino Classic VS Thomas Varghese

    Uploaded by

    Firdouse C.P.
    1) This document is the written submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 1 in a revision petition filed by Platino Classic Motors (India) Pvt Ltd against an order of the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. 2) The Commission had dismissed an appeal filed by Platino Classic Motors, directing them to refund Rs. 28,000 plus interest and compensation of Rs. 10,000 to Respondent No. 1 for illegally charging a handling fee when Respondent No. 1 purchased a BMW. 3) Respondent No. 1 argues that the revision petition should be dismissed as Platino Classic Motors has not proved their entitlement to collect the handling charges and such charges constitute unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 7

    IN THE COURT OF NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL

    COMMISION, NEW DELHI

    R.P NO.2009/2017
    In the matter of:-

    Platino Classic Motors (India) Pvt Ltd Revision Petitioner

    Versus

    Thomas Varghese Oomen & Anr Respondents

    INDEX

    SL PARTICULARS PAGES
    NO.
    1. Written submissions on behalf of
    Respondent.1

    SHYAM PADMAN ASSOCIATES


    Counsel for the Respondents.1
    Flat No.201,
    Tower No.1,
    Supreme Towers,
    Sector 99- NOIDA
    NCR- 201304
    Mob: 9711318487
    advjaimon@yahoo.co.in
    NEW DELHI
    DATED
    IN THE COURT OF NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE
    REDRESSAL COMMISION, NEW DELHI
    R.P NO.2009/2017
    In the matter of:-

    Platino Classic Motors (India) Pvt Ltd Revision Petitioner

    Versus

    Thomas Varghese Oomen & Anr Respondents

    WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT


    NO.1

     That this revision petition is against the order passed by


    the Honourable Kerala State Consumer Dispute
    Redressel Commission dated 27.02.2017 in Appeal No.
    514/14. The Respondent No.1 in this revision petition filed
    C.C. No. 643/2017 before the Consumer Dispute
    Redressel Forum (CDRF), Ernakulam, Kerala alleging
    deficiency of service by demanding extra Rs.28,000 as
    handling expenses towards purchase of his car from
    Revision petitioner and Respondent No.2 for which the
    Respondent No.1 is seeking the refund of Rs.28,000 with
    interest and cost.

     That the CDRF allowed the complaint stating the illegal


    levy of handling charges in addition to the price fixed by
    the manufacturer amounts not only to deficiency in service
    but also to unfair trade practice on the part of Revision
    Petitioners herein and the Respondent 2 being the
    manufacturer is keeping mum regarding the illegal levying
    of handling charges. Against which Revision petitioners
    filed an appeal before the state commission and the state
    commission dismissed the appeal directing the revision
    petitioner herein to refund Rs.28,000 with interest and
    compensation of Rs.10,000.

    Facts of the case:-


    1. It is submitted that on 19.03.2012 Respondent No.1 who is
    the Managing director of Toms Motors Pvt Ltd had
    approached Revision petitioner for purchasing a BMW 520D
    car which is manufactured by Respondent no.2.

    2. It is submitted that the booking was done on 19.03.2012


    and the vehicle was delivered on 23.03.2012 for a total price
    of Rs.38,82,900.

    3. Now it is submitted that after the delivery of the vehicle the


    revision petitioners had demanded for a payment of another
    Rs. 28,000 towards handling expenses from the Respondent
    No.1.

    4. That the Respondent no.1 filed a complaint before the


    District forum, Ernakulam, Kerala alleging Revision
    petitioners had charged extra towards handling charges. The
    District forum allowed the complaint and directed the revision
    petitioner to refund Rs. 28,000 to Respondent no.1 also
    Rs.10,000 as compensation.

    5. Being aggrieved by the judgement of District consumer


    forum, Revision petitioners approached the State consumer
    Redressel commission against the order dated 27.08.2014
    passed by the District forum in consumer Complaint No. 643
    of 2012.

    6. The state commission vide its order dated 27.02.2017


    dismissed first appeal filed by the Revision petitioner inter
    alia on the ground that collection of handling charges is
    illegal and same amount to deficiency of service.

    SUBMISSIONS:-

    7. The revisionist states that Respondent No.1 is not a


    consumer as defined under section 2 (1)d of the Act, as the
    respondent no.1 purchased the vehicle in the name of the
    managing director, Toms Motors Pvt. Ltd and uses the same
    of his personal purpose and so he is not a consumer within
    the ambit of the consumer Protection Act 1986.

    It is submitted that the The National Commission in controls


    and Switch Gear Company limited Vs Daimler chryster India
    Private limited & Another IV (2007) CPJ 1 (NC) has held that
    the cars are purchased for the use of directors and not be
    used for any activity directly connected with commercial
    purpose of earning profit and therefore the purchase of the
    car by directors cannot be termed as for commercial
    purpose. Since he used it for personal purpose and not for
    commercial purpose he can be considered as consumer
    under section 2 (1) d.

    8. Revisionist is contending that the complainant booked the


    vehicle being that Respondent No. 1 fully aware that he is
    legally bound to pay Rs. 28,000 as handling charges(VTDC
    charges)

    It is submitted that the Revisionist would say that it was


    towards insurance, transportation charges etc but nothing is
    mentioned about the same in tax invoice and failed to prove
    that they are entitled to collect such handling charges also
    failed to prove any provision in Motor Vehicles Act, 1980
    also The delhi High Court in C.Rajaram, Advocate & Another
    vs. GNCT of Delhi & Others ( High Court of Delhi) (WP) (C)
    No. 8508/2011 has categorically held that dealers are not
    entitled to collect such charges.

    9. The illegal levying of handling charges in addition to the


    price fixed by the manufacturer amounts not only to
    deficiency in service, but also to unfair trade practices on the
    part of the revisionist.
    10. Also it is submitted that the CDRF Ernakulam has found
    that the Respondent No.2 is keeping mum regarding the
    illegal levying of handling charges by the Revisionist.

    In view of the above submissions the revision petition is to


    be dismissed.

    SHYAM PADMAN ASSOCIATES


    Counsel for the Respondent No.1
    Flat No.201,
    Tower No.1,
    Supreme Towers,
    Sector 99- NOIDA
    NCR- 201304
    Mob: 9711318487
    advjaimon@yahoo.co.in
    NEW DELHI
    DATED

    You might also like