Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 18 th day of November 2015.
C.C.No. 53 of 2014.
Sankar Majhi,aged about 36 years son of Biswambar Majhi,
Resident of Malpada, BolangirTown, P.O/P.S/Dist-Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.M/S. Arundhati Motors (P) Ltd. Represented through
Brahmanand Meher,At-Sambalpur Road, Near Check gate,
NH-201, Bolangir, P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.
2.Hero Moto Corporation (O) Ltd, 34 Basant Lok,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057.
3.The Regional Transport Officer, Bolangir,At/P.O &
Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the complainant- Sri D.Biswal & Associates.
Adv.for the O.Ps 1 & 2 - Sri A.K.Mishra & Associates.
Adv.for the O.P.No.3 - None.
Date of filing of the case- 03.05.2014
Date of order -18.11.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
The complainant purchased one Hero Glamour Motor cycle on dt.27.05.2014 for consideration of Rs 60,130/-. In purchase of the vehicle also paid Rs 3,433/- towards road tax, Registration fee, Smart card charges besides an insurance premium Rs 1,643/-.The vehicle bears registration No.OD-03B
2. The complainant also averred the O.P.1 has no right to collect Rs 200/- as online charges being illegal under M.V.Act and consumer Protection Act. The O.P is collecting online charges from its inception and large numbers of consumers are defrauded. The other allegation raising that large numbers of consumers also get bullied as the vehicle show room berths private insurer, who charge more than the Nationalized Insurance companies in premium, the practice is an unfair trade practice and the consumers are duped. Prayed in the interest of justice, the shop be directed to stop collection online charges and consumers be refrained from the unscrupulous exploiting nature of private companies and bike-dealer relied on ICICI Lombard Certificate, Retail Invoice, vehicle money receipt. and affidavit.
3. In pursuant to notice, the O.P appeared and filing the version admitted the vehicle purchase, Insurance and Registration ensued at his end and contending No on line charges have been collected, the charges collected towards the modern office accommodation, computerization net work infrastructure build up for the betterment of the complainant and interest of the public at large.
4. In para-7, the O.P also pleaded selling the vehicle to the complainant, has not caused any mental agony to the complainant for which O.P.1 can not be restrained to collect on line charge fees and insurance premium which system the dealer i.e the answering O.P adopted only for the betterment of the consumer to escape from unto wards incident. Not acted contrary to any law. The complaint needs to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
5. We have heard the submission and erudite arguments as advanced and have perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the O.P.1 asserts the vehicle in question is purchased, registered and insured under his umbrella, the system that has been developed for business promotion and public interest.
7. The photo copies of retail invoice, vehicle money receipt No.1420 dt.27.05.2014 and Policy No.3005/23102485/11089/000 and registration clearly evidenced the transaction ensured and the only dispute survives on comparatively more premium collection, Registration charges includes on line charges and insisting to obtained policy and other miscellaneous procedures at the point of sale. On the issue The notification dt.30.01.2014 reads:-
OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER-CUM- CHAIRMAN
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,ODISHA. CUTTACK.
No. 1247 / Dt.30.01.2014
PUBLIC NOTICE.
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 somer 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.
8. The bare reading of the public Notice speaks the directions, obligations and above all provisions and mandates under the M.V.Act 1988, has been shattered. The dealer has collected money under various pretext in broad day light.
9. In rebut, the O.P.1 pleaded the logistics have been developed for public interest and no proof is their to fasten the fault is that online charges have been collected. We get convinced, the registration charges, break up calculation clearly adduce so. Again the public notice clearly bars not to collect extra amounts towards logistics/handling/ miscellaneous charges etc. further the O.P.1 pleads in para-7 “O.P-1 can’t be restrained to collect online charges/fees and insurance premium” which is self explanatory that charges collected in pretext of latest logistics deployed which is gross illegal and the adoption is of unfair trade practice and mis carriage of mandates under purview of multiple laws. Even O.P.1 resiled from the direction to produce money receipts that the transactions entered into hitherto on its part and it is became an established fact innumerable consumers have been effected or defrauded in connivance of O.P.3, 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 statute.
ORDER.
The case is allowed on contest. The O.P.1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only as compensation towards loss, harassment and mental agony sustained, within 45 days of this order, failing which @ 9% P.A interest will accrue on same from the date of application till realization, inclusive of legal expenses.
Besides that the O.P.1 is also liable to pay a sum of Rs 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only to be deposited at Consumer Welfare Fund” of the State within above time frame for defrauding and unscrupulous exploitation of un-identified consumers, failing @ 9% P.A interest will accrue till realization/deposit.
(ii) Further O.P.3 is directed to apprise the public by raising public hoardings and bring public notice in details and also file substantive inspection report with forum, that such practice has been stopped in the respective POS and show rooms of vehicles in Bolangir and reporting consecutively in each three months end.
(iii) This forum also reserves the right to visit the show room/dealer/POS at odd intervals for public interest.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015.
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
I do not agree with the order passed by the learned President for the following points.
1. That the complainant has stated in his complaint petition that the O.P.1 has taken Rs 3,433/- towards Registration charges and Rs 1,693/- towards Insurance Premium. To prove his case, the complainant has produced only the Insurance Certificate wherein it has clearly indicated that Rs 1,638/- has been paid towards Insurance but the O.P.1 has collected Rs 1,693/- from the complainant. So it has clearly proved through documentary evidence by the complainant that the O.P.1 has collected excess amount of Rs 51/- than the actual Insurance premium.
2. The other allegation regarding collection of excess amount towards Registration charges by the O.P.1, the complainant has failed to prove that the O.P.1 has paid fewer amounts towards Registration charges than the amount collected from him.
In view of my aforesaid opinion the O.P.1 is liable to pay Rs 1,000/- as compensation as well as litigation expenses, for collecting excess amount of Rs 51/- towards Insurance, within 30 days of this order, failing which interest @ 9% P.A. will be charged from the date of filing of the case till realization.
(G.K.Rath)
MEMBER.
