I Date of filing: 16.03.2019 Date of disposal: L8.12.2O25 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES (PRINCIPAL REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU BENCH)

DATED: 18th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 PRESENT CoRAll: HON'BLE 1{r. JUSTICE T.G. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA - ^PRESIDENT and HON'BLE Mrs. DMASHREE ltl - LADY MEiTIBER scl29l At459120L9 /

The Proprietor Authorized Dealer, TVS Motor Company, Shanthi Agencies, Near RTO Office, Turuvanuru Road, Chitradurga.

(Rep. by Smt. Viiaya lrl.N, .....Appellant/s.

Advocate)

-Yls -

1) S.R. Bhaskara Reddy, S/o. Ramappa, Aged About 63 years, Owner of Mahadevi Motors, Vat: ^{Vemananagara,} 1* Cross, Near Challakere ^{Toll Gate,} Chitradurga.

(Rep. by Sri. SPoorthY Hegade Nagaraja, Advocate)

2) The Managing Director, WS Motor ComPanY ^Limited, Manufacturer / Service Department, PB No.4, Harita, Hosur - 635 109, Tamilnadu.

(Rep. by Sri. Sudhakar.B, .....Respondent/s.

Advocate)

ORAL ORDER (PER:HON'BLE ilr. JUSTICE T.G. ^{SHryASHANKARE GOWDA,} PRESIDENT)

This Appeal is filed by ^{the opposite party No'2} Under Section 15 of ^{the Consumer Protection Act} challenging the order ^{dated: L4.02.20L9 passed in C'C'} No.09/2018 by the ^{District Consumer Disputes} Redressal Forum, Chitradurga, (in short the District Commission).

2. The Appellant was the opposite party No.2, Respondent No.1 was the complainant and Respondent No.2 was the opposite party No.1 before the District Commission. The rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.

3.

The brief facts of the case is that, opposite party No.1 is the original equipment manufacturer. Opposite party No.2 is the dealer of TVS Jupiter ZX BS-IV Scooty, MAG purple, bearing Engine No.

EG4KH1635039, Frame No. MD626EG4XH1K55024. The complainant has approached the opposite party No.2 and paid an advance of Rs.10,00O1- for purchase of the said vehicle on 13.12.2017.

Again on

15.L2.20t7 he paid a sum of Rs.62,554/-. After purchase of the vehicle opposite No.2 has issued the final bill for Rs.55,624l- and delivered the invoice No.919 on t5.t2.20L7. The opposite ^party No.2 of demanded extra fittings amount Rs.2,4O0l-, Rs.1,025/- towards minor fittings, Rs.1,000/- towards TP charges, Rs.2,580/- towards insurance charges, which is excess, abnormal and exorbitant and not in accordance with law. Complainant refused to pay the said amount and demanded for refund of the amount. Opposite party without issuing the original bill made a bill.

fake, bogus, created and concocted Thereby committed deficiency of service and hence complaint ^is filed before the District Commission.

4. Before the District Commission the opposite parties have appeared through their advocates and filed their version.

5. It is the contention of the opposite ^pafty No.1 that, it being a OEM nothing to do with the dealer and the customer and there is no fraud or cheating committed by them. The complaint is not maintainable and sought for dismissal.

6.

In the version opposite party No.2 has admitted that the sale of TVS Scooty to the complainant and advance payment of Rs.10,000/- and ^payment of Rs.55,624l- on 15.12.2Ot7. The vehicle should be required an extra fittings and accordingly fittings were made to the scooter, the scooter was insured and they have charged for the same, which is not part of the sale consideration of the scooter. No bogus bill is issued, nor fraud is committed. The opposite party No.2 has returned around Rs.3,000/- to the complainant. There is no deficienry of service and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

7 Before the District Commission complainant has filed his affidavit Evidence as PW-1 and marked 06 documents from Exhibits-A.l to A.6. On behalf of the opposite parties, the Territory Manager of opposite party No.1 and the Proprietor of opposite No.2 have filed their affidavit evidences as DW-1 & DW-2 and 07 documents came to be marked as Exhibits-B.1 to 8.7.

8.

The District Commission after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint in-part directing the opposite pafi No.2 to pay a su