S.C.VYAS,PRESIDENT - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 27.4.12, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called District forum  for short) in complaint case No.169/2011, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein was partly allowed and the OPs/ respondents have been directed to pay Rs.6,500 jointly or severally alongwith interest @ 7 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and also to pay Rs.1,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000 as cost of litigation. The prayer for refund of cost price on account of unfair trade practice of the respondents was not allowed and therefore this appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the awarded amount by allowing the aforesaid prayer also.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that respondent No.1 Sairam Automobiles & Services Pvt. Ltd. is the authorized dealer of Tata Motors at Bhilai, District Durg and respondent No.2 is the manufacturer of Tata Indica Vista Aura Quadrajet ABS model car, which was purchased by the appellant from showroom of respondent No.1. It is also not in dispute that in the month of April 2010 a scheme was launched by the Manufacturer by offering twenty free cars in a period of twenty days. Even the offer was valid at the time of purchase of the car in question and as per the offer during the period of offer 20 purchasers were to be refunded back cost of the car purchased by them. Under the same scheme the purchasers were required to pay only Re. l for insurance of their car and remaining amount of insurance was to be borne by the respondents.
(3.) CASE of the complainant was that the respondent No.2 published an advertisement in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper Raipur edition dated 29.4.10, whereby for the purpose of promoting sale of cars, offer of 20 free cars in 20 days was made. According to the offer, purchaser of any model of car was having an opportunity to get back the price of the car. Assured benefit of Rs.30,000 including insurance @ Re.1 was also offered and last date of the offer was 30.4.2010. The complainant on 29.4.10 purchased an Indica Vista Aura Quadrajet ABS model car from OP No.1 under the scheme on condition of deferred payment and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on that very date under Vehicle Delivery Receipt. In that Vehicle Delivery Receipt the Ex -showroom price of the car was shown as Rs.5,27,199 and against the insurance amount ˜free word was used. In that receipt Rs.1,500 was charged as handling charges under the head other charges, Rs.800 for temporary registration and Rs.5,100 was charged as Teflon /Dinitron charges. Insurance policy was also provided by the seller and in that policy the premium was shows as Rs.13,580. Thus, in all Rs.5,34,599 were paid by the complainant to the respondent by Demand Draft on 30.4.10. Later on Sale Certificate was provided by the respondents alongwith tax invoice and pollution standard certificate. The Ex -showroom price of the vehicle in the tax invoice was shown as Rs.5,13,620 including Vat and Entry Tax. Thus, there was difference of Ex -showroom price of the vehicle shown in tax invoice and the price shown in the Vehicle shown in Delivery Receipt and an excess amount of Rs.13,579 was collected from the complainant on account of this difference, which was against the promise of free insurance. On inquiry no satisfactory reply was given by the OPs. It has also been averred by the complainant that Rs.1,500 was also collected in excess by the OPs. This amount was continuously being collected from all other purchasers also though there was no reason for collecting that amount. It has also been averred in the complaint that as per the scheme 20 purchasers of cars were to be refunded the price of their car during a period of 20 days, but names of all 20 such winners were not declared by the OPs and thus the respondents/OPs have adopted deceptive and unfair trade practice, so punitive compensation is required to be awarded against them and the complainant is entitled for refund of price of the car and also refund of amount of Rs.13,579 and Rs.1,500 which were collected in excess of the Ex -showroom price. The respondents in their separate replies have refuted the allegations of deceptive and unfair trade practice on collecting extra amount from the complainant. OP No.1/respondent No.1 in its written version averred that Ex -showroom price of the vehicle was Rs.5,27,199 and in the Tax Invoice lesser price of the vehicle was only shown, so that amount of insurance which was paid in cash by respondent No.1 to the insurance company may be collected from the manufacturer. Similarly, it has been averred that as per the authority given by the manufacturer, Rs.1,500 were collected as handling charges. It has been averred that in the Vehicle Delivery Receipt, nothing has been charged against insurance and therefore free insurance was provided and only Ex -showroom price of the vehicle was collected from the complainant.;