Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/61

Sachin Kaushal - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.M.Auto Sales Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Jwahar Chandan,Adv.

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Sachin Kaushal 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 issuance of the following directions to them:-

i)       To refund the amount of Rs.15,739/- (Rs.11,136/- + Rs.4603/-) and the amount overcharged for the insurance along with interest @ 18% P.A.,

 

ii)      To pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him,

 

iii)     To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses,

 

iv)     To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit, in the facts & circumstances of the present case.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Maruti Ertiga Car, VDI Model, bearing Chassis No. MA3FLEB1S00287987 and Engine No.D13A5096694 from the O.P.  No.1 vide invoice No.VSL14000132 dated 27.12.2014, which was got registered with the Registering Authority, Rupnagar, vide registration No. PB-12-W-7659. At the time of booking of the said car, he had paid Rs.10,000/- as booking amount on 27.12.2014 and rest of the payment was made, lateron, through Demand Draft/Banker Cheque No. 540328 dated 27.12.2014 drawn on State Bank of Patiala amounting to Rs.7,81,725/-. The car was agreed to be sold for a total amount of Rs.7,78,589/- (i.e. Rs.7,50,594/- + Rs.27,445/- as insurance amount and Rs.550/- for temporary number). Thus, the O.P. No.1 had overcharged an amount of Rs.13,136/- by making misrepresentation and when he asked about the same from the employees of the O.P. No.1, then they told him  that the said amount would be adjusted in the registration charges of the said vehicle. Even the amount for getting insurance of the said vehicle was excessively charged from him, as confirmed by the other insurance company.  It is further stated that he was asked to approach the O.P. No.2 for registration of the vehicle in question. When he approached the O.P. No.2, after calculating the amount of road tax/registration fee etc., he was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.58,935/- for getting the said vehicle registered. He requested the O.P. No.2 that as per his knowledge, the registration charges were to be calculated as per the base price of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs.6,53,625.93/- but the O.P. No.2 remained adamant and insisted that amount of registration is to be calculated by adding the amount of VAT charged on the said amount and also claimed that they charge the amount in the same manner from all the customers and no special rebate would be given to him. He had also misbehaved with him on telephone. In these circumstances, believing the version of the O.P. No.2 to be true & having no other option entrusted an amount of Rs.58,935/- to it. When he asked about the above said excess amount already charged by it, then the O.P. No. 2 had adjusted Rs.2000/- only, against the registration charges received by it and issued receipt for an amount of Rs.56,935/- . In this manner, an amount of Rs.11,136/- still stands overcharged from him. Thereafter, he had moved an application dated 07.02.2015 under Right to Information Act to the District Transport Officer/ Registration Authority, Rupnagar, for providing information as to what charges were got deposited by the said department from the O.P. No.1 for registration of the vehicle in question. As per the information supplied to him by the Public Information Officer-cum-DTO, Rupnagar vide letter No. DTO/668 dated 27.01.2015 in reply to his above said application dated 07.02.2015, an amount of Rs.54,332/- (Life Time Road Tax 53,512/-, Registration Fee and Hypothecation fee Rs.400/-, Smart Card fee Rs.43/-, Society Fee Rs.200/-, Scanning Fee Rs.20/- and Smart Card Society Fee Rs.153/-) was deposited b y the O.Ps. in the office of the DTO, Rupnagar and it had further transpired that for the registration of the vehicle in question, an auto agency can charge only the above mentioned amount and except that, they cannot charge even a single penny. In this manner, an amount of Rs.4603/- was overcharged from him by O.P’s on account of registration charges. He had collected Registration Certificate (RC) on 4.3.2015 from Anandpur Sahib sub Agency of the O.P. No.1, situated on Naina Devi Road, Anandpur Sahib and demanded the registration file of the vehicle in question because as per the information supplied to him by the DTO, Rupnagar, the registration file is returned to the concerned auto agency for supplying the same to the owner of the vehicle, but the employees of the O.P. No.1 flatly refused to return/hand over the said file to him. He talked about the same with the O.P. No. 2 on his mobile No. 9592916702, but he started arguing and misbehaving with him. The aforesaid acts of the O.Ps. amount to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice. He had also moved an application to the SSP, Rupnagar on 27.03.2015, which is still under consideration. He had also served a legal notice dated 10.03.2015 upon the O.Ps., but no reply was given to the same by them.  Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.Ps.  filed written version in the form of affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur, authorized signatory, taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable against the O.Ps.; that they have been unnecessarily dragged into this frivolous litigation, as there is no deficiency in service on their part and that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is stated that the O.Ps. have not overcharged the amount of Rs.11,136/-, as alleged by the complainant. It is well within knowledge of the complainant that he had himself opted for extended warranty and the said amount of Rs.11,136/- was charged on account of optional extended warranty for 3^rd and 4^th year, thus, he is estopped to say that an amount of Rs.11,136/- has been over charged from him. It is further stated that the registration charges were received by the employee of the O.Ps. and when it came to the notice of the O.Ps. that an amount of Rs.4603/- has been received in excess towards registration charges, they have requested the complainant to collect the said amount of Rs.4603/-, which was received in excess towards registration fee, but he has failed to collect the same inspite of repeated requests and has filed the present complaint and dragged the O.Ps. into this frivolous litigation. They are still ready to pay back the said amount of Rs.4603/- to him. There is neither any deficiency in service nor adoption of any unfair trade practice on their part and the complainant is not entitled to any relief, as claimed by him wrongly & illegally. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs, the same being without any merit.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps.  tendered affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur, Ex.OP1/A, photocopy of invoice-cum-certificate of extended warranty Registration Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence. 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

6.                Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the car in question from the O.P. No. 1 on 27.12.2014. As per version of the complainant, the O.Ps. had agreed to sell the car in question for a sum of Rs.7,78,589/- (i.e. Rs.750,594/- as cost of the car, Rs.27445/- as insurance amount & Rs.550/- for temporary number) whereas they have charged in total a sum of Rs.7,91,725/-. In this way, a sum of Rs.13,136/- was charged in excess from him. However, the O.P. No. 2 adjusted a sum of Rs.2000/- only while taking payment of registration charges, thus, the O.Ps. are still liable to refund the amount of Rs.11,136/-, which was charged from him in excess, illegally. It is further the grievance of the complainant that after receipt of the information sought under the RTI Act from the  District Transport Officer/Registration Authority, he had come to know that the O.Ps. had deposited a sum of Rs.54332/- (i.e. life time road tax of Rs.53512/-, registration fee and hypothecation fee Rs.400/-, smart card fee Rs.43/-, Society fee Rs.200/-, scanning fee of Rs.20/-, smart card society fee Rs.153/-) with the said office for getting the said car registered, whereas they had demanded a sum of Rs.58935/- from him towards registration charges and after adjustment of Rs.2000/- he had paid  a sum of Rs.56,935/- for the said purpose. The O.Ps. had, thus, also charged a sum of Rs.4603/-, in excess, towards registration charges. The stand of the O.Ps. is that nothing excess was paid by the complainant towards the price of the car in question. A sum of Rs.11,136/- was charged on account of optional extended warranty for 3^rd & 4^th year, which the complainant himself had opted, which was provided vide Invoice cum Certificate of Extended Warranty Registration, Ex. OP-1. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant had never requested the O.Ps. for grant of optional extended warranty, but the same was granted by the O.Ps. without his consent and he is not interested to avail the benefits under the said extended warranty. On scrutiny of the record, it is found that no document has been placed on record by the O.Ps. to show that the complainant had opted for extended warranty, therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the plea of the O.Ps. that the optional extended warranty was provided to the complainant at his request is not sustainable. As such, they are liable to refund the amount of Rs.11,130.38 charged from the complainant for the said extended warranty, vide Invoice Cum Certificate of Extended Warranty Registration dated 27.12.2014, Ex. OP-1. So far as the grievance of the complainant regarding charging of excess amount of Rs.4603/- on account of registration charges is concerned, the O.Ps. have fairly admitted that a sum of Rs.4603/- was excessively charged from the complainant on account of registration charges and the complainant was informed to collect the said amount, but he did not come forward to collect the same and they are still ready to pay back the said amount to him. If any amount was found to be excessively charged, then it was the duty of the O.Ps. to have refunded the same to the complainant, but in the absence of any documentary proof, it cannot be said that they had made any efforts to refund the said amount to the complainant. In this view of the matter, the complainant is certainly entitled to refund of the amount excessively charged from him alongwith interest. Not only this, he is also entitled to get compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment &  financial loss suffered by him, alongwith expenses of the instant uncalled for litigation. It may be stated that the O.P. No. 2 being employee of the O.P. No.1 had acted on behalf of his pay master i.e. the O.P. No.1, as such, the O.P. No.1 is liable for the act & conduct of the O.P. No.2. Even otherwise, the complainant had paid the entire amount, as stated above, to the O.P. No.1, therefore, it is liable to refund the excess amount charged from the complainant, alongwith payment of compensation and litigation costs.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed against the O.P. No. 2 is dismissed and the same is allowed against the O.P. No. 1, who is directed to pay to the complainant in the following manner:-

i)       To refund the amount of Rs.11,130.38, allegedly charged on account of extended warranty, alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. the date of payment i.e. 27.12.2014 till realization;

ii)      To refund the amount of Rs.4603/-, excessively charged on account of registration charges, alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. the date of payment i.e. 9.01.2015 till realization;

iii)     To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation;

 iv)    To pay another sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

The  O.P. No. 1 is further directed to comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

 8.               The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                           (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 02.11.2015                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.