DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 95 of 21.3.2017
Decided on: 21.12.2017
Upinderjit Singh Sekhon aged 67 years son of S.Gurnam Singh, resident of House No.B-19/486,Dhak Bazar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd., Opposite AEC, Near Gurudwara Thaltej Cross Road, Sarkhej Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380059 (Gujarat) through its Managing Director.
2. Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd. Hira Bagh, Rajpura Road, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Upinderjit Singh, complainang with his counsel
Sh.Arun Attri, Advocate
Sh.P.S.Walia,Advocae, counsel for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Upinderjit Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 7.11.2016 he booked a Renault’s Kwid RXT (O) AMT car with Ops on payment of Rs.20,000/-in cash vide receipt No.317-S.Thereafter he paid Rs.4,00,000/- through cheque dated 31.12.2016 vide receipt No.57dated 31.12.2016, on the message received from Sh.Baljinder Singh, SM of Op no.2. Again on 9.1.2017 he paid Rs.25,680/- through NEFT vide receipt No.29 to the OPs. In this way a total sum of Rs.4,45,680/- was deposited by the complainant with the OPs as price of the aforesaid car. He also paid Rs.500/- extra for the temporary registration certificate of the car. The complainant took the delivery of the car from the show room of Op no.2.At that time the car was showing 300KMs instead of zero, which shows that OP no.2 was giving test drive of the car to other customers.On 16.1.2017, the complainant went to OP no.2 to collect retail invoice, Form 21 Sale certificate and Form 22 for getting the car registered with D.T.O. Patiala but he was surprised on seeing the retail invoice that ex-showroom price of the car was mentioned as Rs.4,41,180/- instead of Rs.4,45,680/-. Thus the OPs have charged Rs.4500/-in excess from him. To this effect he made a representation dated 20.1.2017 to the OPs but to no effect. Ultimately he got sent a legal notice dated 23.2.2017 upon the OPs but again the OPs failed to pay any heed. The act and conduct of the OPs not only showed deficiency in service on their part but they have also indulged into unfair trade practice which caused mental agony and physical harassment tohim. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.4500/- charged in excess; Rs.500/-charged form temporary RC ; interest on booking amount of Rs.20,000/- alongwith future interest till its realization alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/-as litigation expenses. Any other relief which this Forum may deem fit may also be granted.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written version having admitted that the complainant is their valuable customer .It is stated that after signing declaration dated 9.1.2017 for all the price taken by them, he has no right to file the present complaint. It is admitted that the complainant also signed two more documents i.e. gate pass and an undertaking in favour of the OPs. The OPs have not taken any hidden charges .The OPs delivered the car to the complainant as and when they received the full amount from him. There is neither deficiency of service on their part nor they have committed any unfair trade practice. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C9 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Baljinder Singh alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Admittedly the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from OP no.2 vide retail invoice Exs.C4/OP6 .From the said invoice it is apparent that ex-showroom price of the car in question was Rs.4,41,180/-. From the receipts Exs.C1 to C3, it is evident that the complainant had paid in total a sum of Rs.4,45,680/- ( Rs.4,00,000/-+ Rs.25,680/-+ Rs.20,000/-), thereby showing that the complainant had paid Rs.4500/- more than the ex-showroom price of the car in question. The stand of the Ops is that Rs.4500/-were charged on account of logistic charges. From the bare understanding of meaning of ex-showroom price, it becomes clear that the ex-showroom price would mean the amount of the sale price of the car to be sold by the dealer/seller. Meaning thereby that a person would pay for the purchase of the car which would include every kind of expenses incurred by the seller till the delivery of the car. However, the charges for temporary registration, insurance and accessories, etc. could be extra. The Ops have failed to prove or to place on record any document or cogent reason to justify that the logistic charges could be charged over and above the ex-showroom price and it is not included in the sale price mentioned as ex-showroom price. Thus,we are of the view that the Ops have charged Rs.4500/- in excess from the complainant, which amounted to unfair trade practice on their part and are liable to refund the said amount to the complainant alongwith interest. They are also liable to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment to him alongwith litigation expenses. Our view is supported by the order passed by our own Hon’ble State Commission in the First Appeal No.777 of 2016 titled as Manish Kumar Goyal Vs. Dada Motors & Ors. Decided on 21.4.2017, wherein it has been held that the Ops failed to show any provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 and the rules framed there under and of Sales of Goods Act and leveling of such charges is adoption of unfair trade practice.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops in the following manner:
- To refund to the complainant Rs.4500/- charged in excess alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of the purchase of the car.
- To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation, for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.5,000/-towards costs of litigation.
The O.Ps. are further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:21.12. 2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
