DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………..
Presents:-
1.Sri P.Samantara, President.
2.Sri G.K.Rath, Member.,
Dated, Bolangir the 15th day of January 2016.
C.C.No.01 of 2015.
Uamesh Chandra Mishra son of late Bimbadhar Mishra. At-Behind Civil Court, Bolangir Town,
P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Mr.Brahma Nanda Meher,Prop.M/S.Arundhati Motors. Near Check Gate,
NH-201,Sambalpur Road, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
2.General Manager, Hero Honda Coprporation Ltd.34 Basant Lok,Vasantga Vihar,
New Delhi.-110057.
3.Regional Transport Officer, At-R.T.O.Office, Bolangir,P.O/P.S/Dist-Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the complainant- Sri B.Mishra..
Adv.for the O.P.No.1 - Sri A.K.Mishra & Associates.
Adv.for the O.Ps 2 & 3 - None.
Date of filing of the case – 01.01.2015
Date of order - 15 .01. 2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
Succinctly put, the complainant purchased one Hero “MAESTRO’ SCOOTER FROM m/s. Arundhati Motors, Sambalpur Road, Bolangir on dt.21.01.2014 against a fixed consideration of Rs 58,668/- which includes registration charges, Insurance premium along with other miscellaneous charges.
2. The vehicle registration No.OD-03A-9546.The petitioner also averred on next date of purchase defects surfaced in self start, horn, light and buzzer, although repair attended but still the defects now persists. Further it come to notice the battery box cover and clamp was not fitted. Such non functional defects was complained in the register under complain book page No.636 dt.24.06.2014.
3. The petitioner also stated as the vehicle is under Insurance cover by ICICI Lombard Insurance, so it is made complain on dated 13.09.2014 on damage of left side front cover guard, front guard of mudguard due to some accident, but neither it is attended nor intended to repair any more.
4. Further the complainant averred the dealer has already collected excess money on registration and insurance charges which is beyond the statutory fixed up such mandatory collection of Rs 689/- and Rs 450/- towards tef charges is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency of service, prayed the complainant is entitled for compensation for harass and mental agony sustained by the O.P.No.1 and replace with the damaged parts under necessary direction. Relied on money receipt, Insurance Certificate, Registration Certificate and relative documents and Affidavit. Later written lnote of argument.
5. In pursuant to notice ,the O.P.1 appeared admitting the purchase of the ‘MAESTRO’ SCOOTER AND THE CONSIDERATION AND DENIED THE SUM HAS BEEN FIXED AT Rs 58,668/-,the charge has been collected, in purchase of some customized products which has been asked for.
6. The O.P.1 also stated, it is incorrect, the O.P.1 knowingly delivered a defective e scooter. The defects occurred due to fall of vehicle but same is not inherent.
7. The complainant has been filed this with ulterior motive to harass and reason that so many cases has been filed against the O.P with same cause of action. Prayed the complaint may be dismissed and be penalized for filing a vexatious complaint.
8. O.P.2 neither appear nor made any representation.
9. O.P.3 in appearance submitted vide letter No.322 dt.17.03.2015 that- “ please take necessary follow up action and action taken in this regard may be reported direct to the President D.C.D.R.F.Bolangir on or before 20.03.2015 under intimation to the undersigned failing action will be taken as deemed proper”.
10. Heard the submissions of the parties/counsels and perused the materials on record.
11. It is no more dispute that complainant is a consumer in purchase of the vehicle bearing No.Od-03A-9546 against a consideration of Rs 58,668/- and the concern is that the same amount includes RTO registration charges and Insurance premium in excess to the other companies in the field as alleged and the other concern that is the dealer is the corporate Agent of the ICICI Lombard Insurance company but resile not to entertain the normal Insurance damage claim as lodged by the vehicle bearing Regd.No.OD-03A-9546.
12. These two issues are highlighted by the complainant. On the outset, the perusal of record at hand reveals that the money receipt No.2376 dt.21.01.2014 the Maestro model price Rs 50,400/- followed with Insurance charges of Rs 1,504/- and Registration charges Rs 3,209/- The letter No.1530 dt.17.12.2015 obtained from RTO, Bolangir speaks the statutory fees as collected under following head.
1.Registration Fees - Rs 93/-
2.Road Tax Rs 2,520/-
3.Smart card fee Rs 196/-
Thus it comes to Total Rs 2,809/- whereas it is collected Rs 3,209/-(-)Rs 2,809/- = Rs 400/- excess in violation of Govt. guidelines which is clear improper and substantive
13. Similarly on Insurance head, the price comparison break up reveals as follows:-
New India Assurance Co. Ltd ICICI Lombard
Policy No.-55090231130100001098 3005/2169213/11089/000
Declared Value of Vehicle. (IDV) (IDV)
IDV Rs 47,749/- Rs 47,880/-
OD Rs 601/- Rs 722/-
TP Premium Rs 472/- Rs 472/-
Service Tax Rs 133/- Rs 166/-
Total Rs 1,206/- Rs 1,360/-
P.A owner driven Owner driven Rs 50/-
Nil Depreciation Depreciation Rs 144/-
Total Rs 1,554/-
14. M/S. Arundhati Motors has not taken any excess, the excess taken as raised is optional/Customized item cover as intended by the complainant, besides the statutory fees, which are fixed and equal in nature, no deviation on excess insurance premium found. Therefore any excess premium collected is not founded one but the O.P.1 being a corporate agent of ICICI Lombard & receive d the premium issued the policy but has miserably failed in settlement of claim lodged by the petitioner on its own damage be complain u/s.64 UM sub section (2) & (b) of Insurance Act 1938 and 9(1) of I.R.D.A. Regulation 2002.
15. The letter (document) issued by the RTO speaks the dealer has deposited statutory amount under Motor Vehicle Act is Rs 2,809/- and collected from the complainant Rs 3,209/- which establish that a sum Rs 400/- (Rupees Four hundred has excessively and arbitrarily collected in violation of the public notice No.1247/dt.30.01.2014 issued by the office of the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Cuttack, that reads:-
“It has come to the notice of this office that in some cases Motor vehicle Dealers in the State of Odisha, are collecting extra amounts towards logistic/handling/Miscellaneous charges etc from the customers. All such dealers are hereby directed that any excess amount charged from customers which is not authorized under the M.V.Act,1988 and rules made there under or by the manufacturers, same is in violation of the Terms and Conditions of Trade Certificate.
In some cases dealers are insisting that the buyers insure the vehicles with them which is contrary to provision of M.V.Act 1988.Before registration of motor vehicle the prospective buyer shall have to insure the vehicle with any of the Insurance Companies of his choice and submit copy of Insurance Certificate to the dealer. The dealer is not authorized under the statute to collect online charges from the purchaser and he cannot force the purchaser to get the choice insured with him.
Further all the Motor Vehicle Dealers in the State of Odisha are hereby directed to ensure compliance of Motor Vehicle Act 1988,Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and Odisha Motor Vehicle Rules 1993 as well as Terms and conditions of Trade Certificate. All the dealers must follow the terms and conditions of Trade Certificate.
Failing which necessary action would be taken against them as per the statute.
All intending buyers of vehicles in the State of Odisha are also advised not to pay any logistic /handling/miscellaneous charges etc to the dealers while purchasing vehicles.
Sd/-
Transport Commissioner Odisha.
16. The bare reading of the public notice speaks the directions, obligations and above all provisions and mandates under M.V. Act 1988 which has been shattered. The dealer has collected money under various pretext in broad day light. So the negligence commissioned is unfair trade practice and default under consumer protection Act. Admittingly large numbers of cases have been instituted against the dealer and the authority in charge enforcing the public notice in question is too evasive in its responsibility and appears in collusive and connivance as no “Trade Certificate has been seized or impounded nor penalty has been charged. No necessary action have taken against defrauder/unscrupulous exploitation, as per the statutory notification.
17. In view of the above made findings, we come to conclusion the petitioner has adduced irrefutable evidence and his Case stands proved without any “ifs and buts”. The O.P.1 has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons on excess money collection under the statutory guise. Therefore entirety of the foregoing discussion, we are of considered view that the naked truth is always better than best doused lie” .Thus ordered’
ORDER.
The O.P.1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards insurance damage cover not ensured along with compensation towards loss, despair, harassment and mental agony sustained and inclusive of legal expenses incurred within 30 days of this order, failing which @ 12% interest per annum will accrue on the entire sum from the date of application till realization.
Further the O.P.1 is also to deposit five thousand rupees in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund” in defrauding large number of consumers willfully and not carrying the public notice within 30 days of this order failing which @ 12% interest per annum will accrue on the same from the date of purchase till realization.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016.
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
