SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER
This is a complaint seeking refund of Rs.1400/- being an excess amount collected from the complainant, for getting a Tata Indicom Mobile Phone as offered by opp.party compensation Rs.1000/- and cost of proceeding Rs.1000/-
The complainant’s case is that she had purchased a Tata Indica Xeta Car from the opp.parties on 31.12.2007. On the date of delivery of the vehicle, the opp.party had collected Rs.1500/- from the complainant towards temporary registration charges. Actually the temporary registration fee was only Rs.100/-. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opp.parties on 13..3..2000 requesting the refund of the excess amount levied from the complainant. The opp.party did not refund the amount or issued any reply notice to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get the excess amount collected along with interest from 31..12.2009 and other reliefs. Hence the complaint.
The opp.parties filed version contenting the allegations of the complainant. The averment by the complainant that Rs.1500/- was received as registration fee alone is illmotivated. The complainant requested to help her with formalities of the registration of vehicle with RTO authorities. The opp.parties agreed to do the same for a sum of Rs.1500/- which was received as registration charges, handling charges and service charges. From the above said amount the opp.party had utilized Rs.50/- for temporary registration, Rs.230/- for permanent registration and the balance amount for miscellaneous expenses and service charges. The complainant also well aware of these facts. The complainant is having no right to claim refund after utilizing service from the opp.parties. The complaint is based on distorted and incomplete facts with an ulterior motive of making wrongful gains and hence it is to be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit. PW.1 was examined. Exts.P1 and P2 marked.
The opp.party has no oral or documentary evidence
Heard both sides.
The points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of the opp.parties
2. Compensation and cost.
POINTS 1 AND 2
Admittedly the complainant had purchased a Tata Indica car from the opp.parties on 31..12..2007 and the opp.parties had collected Rs.1500/- from the complainant.
According to the complainant the opp.parties had collected Rs.1500/- only for the temporary registration. The opp.parties raised contention that the amount of Rs.1500/- was received as temporary registration charges, handling charges and service charges. It is also stated by the opp.parties in their version that they had utilized Rs.50/- as temporary registration charges and Rs.230/- as permanent registration charges. Rest of the amount was utilized for miscellaneous expenses and service charges. It is further contented that the complainant is having no right to claim refund after utilizing service from the opp.parties.
The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the version is silent about the heads of accounts in which the service charges was accounted.
We have perused the documents adduced by the complainant in detail. Ext.P1 shows that Rs.1500/- was received by the opp.parties towards registration charges No mention of handling charges or service charges in Ext.P1. No document was produced by the opp.parties to show that this amount was collected from the complainant for handling charges and service charges also. The opp.parties had already admitted that the temporary Registration fee is Rs.50/- and permanent Reg. Fee is Rs.230/-
The complainant has no case that the permanent Reg. charges was incurred by her. In cross exam PW.1 had stated that she had no knowledge regarding the rate of permanent Registration fee. She had stated while in cross exam that “Permanent Registration svu\fk fr\rf\ dealer company LlSnl tr\ryjujh\h; It is also admitted by PW.1 while in re exam that she had complaint only regarding the temporary registration. In the cross also she had stated that “Permanent Reg. rk\ <lwgl]juf\ tijsm Llsnr\rkA tr\rlsnr\rkA BlR QlG]kr\rjh\h”. These statements and admissions leads to the inference that the complainant had availed service for permanent registration also from the opp.parties. Thus the opp.party had utilized total amount of Rs.280/- towards temporary registration fee and permanent registration fee.”
Even though an exorbitant amount of Rs.1500/- was collected by the opp.parties from the complainant and utilized only an amount of Rs.280/- towards registration charges, the complainant had stated in Ext.P2 Advocate notice that “a sum of Rs.200/- will be reasonable for service charges if any incurred in this connection”. The learned counsel for the complainant also raised this point in his arguments. But we think that a sum of Rs.300/- will be a reasonable amount for service charges.
No evidence produced by the complainant to show that the complainant was offered with a Tata Indicom Mobile phone as a ‘ scratch and win’ price and hence the prayer for getting Tata Indicom Mobile Phone cannot be accepted
On a careful consideration of the above mentioned facts and evidence before us, we are of the view that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties. The points found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opp.parties are directed to refund Rs.920/- to the complainant. The opp.parties are further directed to pay compensation Rs.500/- and cost Rs.500/-
The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2012.
.
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. – Alice George
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Order form
P2. – copy of Lawyer notice
