BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.388 of 2021
Date of Instt. 17.11.2021
Date of Decision: 27.10.2022
Hardyal Singh, Age 70 years, S/o late S. Ralla Singh, H. No.1158, Gali No.14, Kakipind, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar. Mob. No.7696127510.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Cargo Motors (Punjab) Pvt. Ltd., 11, Mool Raj Road, Mohalla No.7, Sadar Bazar, Jalandhar Cantt. 144005 Through its Manager/Authorized Representative.
2. Cargo Motors (Punjab) Pvt. Ltd., 40, G. T. Road, Opp. Police Line, Jalandhar-144001 Through its Director/Manager/Authorized Representative.
3. CSD Depot, 01 Porus Road, Jalandhar Cantt. 144005 Through its Area Manager/Authorized Representative.
4. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance, TF, Third 88 The Mall, Ludhiana 144001 Through its Director/Manager/Authorized Representative.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
Sh. Suteekshan Samrol, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
Sh. R. K. Bhalla, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.
OP No.4 exparte.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that on 11.06.2021 the complainant purchased a scooter Activa 125 cc Disc. from OP No.1 through OP No.3 for Rs.77,202/-. The complainant desired to purchase white colour Activa Scooter for which Indent for purchase of white colour scooter was submitted to opposite party No.1. The OP No.1 told the complainant that white colour vehicle is available with them upto 14 June 2021. On 09.6.2021 complainant went to OP No.3 in view to get the order for delivery of vehicle from OP No.1, at first he was directed to give the payment (Rs.69361/-) online which the complainant remitted online to OP No.3. After receipt the payment from complainant, the OP No.3 directed the complainant to approach OP No. 1 for getting delivery of vehicle. On 11/06/2021 OP No.3 issued Local Supply order of vehicle to complainant to collect the vehicle from OP No.1. When the complainant approached OP No.1, the OP No.1 told the complainant that white colour activa scooter is not available with them, however, Dark Grey Colour Scooter is available with them and forced the complainant to take Dark Grey colour vehicle saying that "LE LO YEH BHI BIK JAYEGA, FIR AAPKO INTZAAR KARNA PAREGA". As such the OP No.1 forcibly offered Dark Grey colour scooter instead of white colour to complainant. The OP No.3 received from complainant Rs.69361/- which is discount rate for Army person. The OP No.4 insured the above said vehicle as per their own insured declared value for Rs.91228/-, vide policy dated 11/6/2021 which is incorrect & higher rate of billed amount. The OP No.4 received from complainant the sum of Rs.5481/- for making this policy. When the complainant urged on 8/1/2021 that wrong insurance has been made on higher rate of vehicle, then the OP No.4 prepared another Policy dated 19/6/2021 for Rs.5227/- in which the insured declared value of vehicle mentioned Rs.75,299/-. As such the OPs received excess amount Rs.254/-. The OP No.4 neither refunded the excess charged amount nor issued the original insurance policy of above said vehicle to complainant till date. It is pertinent to mention that the OP No.4 has issued two different Insurance Policy proposal letters for same vehicle with different validity period and different premium charged. It is not known which insurance policy is genuine. The OP No.1 charged extra amount Rs.13,000/-vide their receipt No. 283 dated 11/6/21 but despite so many repeated requests and letters, the OP No.1 didn't give the detail of said excess charged amount. The complainant sent Notice through registered post dated 14/10/2021 to OP No.1 copy of which sent to opposite party No.3 asking the detail of extra charged amount (Rs.13,000/-) vide their receipt but the OPs neither replied nor given the detail of extra charged amount. The OP No.l charged Rs.6260/- for registration of Activa scooter with RTA Jalandhar, but when enquired from RTA Jalandhar, on 19/6/2021 the RTA Jalandhar informed the complainant through SMS that Rs.5720/- has been received for registration of said vehicle. As such Rs.540/- has been charged excess by OP No.1 for registration of said vehicle. The complainant requested the OP No.1 several times to refund the excess charged amount of RC, but the OPs ignored and refused to refund the said amount on one pretext or other. The OP No.1 charged extra Rs.250/- on account of Pre Delivery Inspection (PDI) whereas no such service was provided to complainant. No receipt of this amount was given to complainant by the OP No.1. The complainant vide his letter dated 02 Sept. 2021 asked the OPs for overcharging of insurance, over charging of RC and non-providing the detail of extra amount charged vide receipt No.283 dated 11/6/2021 but no reply given by OPs. On 11 Sept. 2021 the OIC AFD Cell for Chairman-HQ 91 Sub Ares directed the OP No.3 to obtain documents as mentioned in page-5 para 14 of letter dated 2 Sept. 2021 from dealer copy of which forwarded to OP No.2 but the OPs neither took any action nor replied the said letter so far. On 28 Sept. 2021 the Area Manager of OP No.3 written a letter to OP No.2 requesting to give para wise comments of above said letter upto 1st 2021, but the OP No.2 didn't bother to reply the said letter. On 26 Oct. 2021, the OP No.3 informed the complainant that the case of complainant has been forwarded to competent Authority for their examination and further action in the matter. But no action has been taken in the matter till date. Despite so many letters, several visited and many requests made by complainant to OPs, the OPs neither gave the detail of extra amount charged or refunded the excess charged amount of Insurance, RC, Pre Delivery Inspection, which tantamount to unfair trade practice and amounts to negligence and deficiency in service. Due to non providing the detail of extra amount charged (Rs.13,000/-), non-refund of excess amount charged of insurance, RC and PDI (Pre Delivery Inspection), the complainant has suffered a lot of Mental tension, harassment and financial loss and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to issue the original insurance policy of above said vehicle and to refund the excess charged amount of insurance i.e. Rs.254/- and to give the detail of extra charged amount Rs.13,000/- and to refund the excess charged amount of RC Rs.540/- and to refund amount of PDI Rs.250/-. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.4 failed to appear and ultimately OP No.4 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP in the present form. It is further averred that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further averred that the complainant is himself the wrong doer, so he cannot take benefits of his own wrongs. Moreover, the complainant has himself not paid the requisite registration fee of the vehicle in question to the Govt. and had been running the vehicle in question illegally without registration certificate. It is further averred that the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle used for the commercial purpose, hence, the complainant is not a consumer covered under the Consumer Protection Act. It further averred that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and the motive of the complainant is to extract money out of this false and frivolous case by harassing the answering OP. The complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed out rightly as it discloses no facts or occasion giving a cause of action to file a complaint under Consumer Protection Act against the answering OP. The complaint has been filed on the basis of manipulated, managed and created cause of action with a view to make undue pecuniary gains. It is further averred that the Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing the vehicle by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further averred that the answering OP Canteen Stores Department (CSD) is a Welfare Organization functioning under Min of Defence with a motto "Service to Services". CSD is established mainly to serve the troops across the nation by following various laws/rules enacted by Govt. of India. Being the authorized CSD beneficiary, serving/retired beneficiaries (Armed Forces/Defence Civilian Personnel) are authorized to buy the items listed in CSD inventory at a subsidized rate as allowed by Govt. of India. To avail the benefit, the rules/regulation as promulgated by CSD HO/Canteen Services Die has to be followed by all CSD beneficiary. In case of AFD-1 items, CSD HO engages with OEMS to nominate their civil dealers to serve for CSD beneficiary. Except subsidized rates, all other terms & conditions as applicable to civil customers is also applicable for CSD beneficiaries as laid down by the OEM/State Govt./Act/Law. With reference to AFD-1 items, the role of the CSD is to ensure that demand placed by a beneficiary is processed as per the laid down set of criteria/procedures i.e. only till effecting delivery of the demanded item to the beneficiary through the nominated dealer. After effective delivery, all other procedures/process have to be followed by the CSD beneficiary on his/her own as per the guidelines/system/Act/OEM as applicable at par with civil customers. CSD does not involve in the same and has no role in it. It is further averred that no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint against the answering opposite party as the answering OP is not liable for any alleged loss, if any, to the complainant. Moreover, no relief has been sought against the answering OP. Hence, the present complaint qua the answering opposite party is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the answering OP is not the necessary party in the present complaint and therefore, the name of the answering OP is liable to be deleted in further proceedings. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing the vehicle by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The complainant submitted that he submitted indent for the purchase of white colour Activa to the OP and the OP No.1 assured him that white colour Activa is available with them upto 14, June 2021, but when he approached the OP No.1, he was informed that the white colour Activa is not available with them and he was forced to purchase Dark Grey Colour Scooter. He has submitted that he had already made the payment of Rs.69,361/- online to the OP No.3 and the OP No.3 directed the complainant to approach to OP No.1. He has further submitted that the OP No.4 insured the vehicle for Rs.91,228/- and received an amount of Rs.5481/- from the complainant, but when he agitated, then the policy was again prepared for Rs.75,299/- instead of Rs.91,228/- and Rs.5227/- were charged from the complainant. The excess amount was never refunded to the complainant. The OPs have charged extra amount of Rs.13,000/- from the complainant. Even the OPs have charged Rs.540/- for registration of the vehicle from the complainant which they cannot do as it is responsibility to get the vehicle registered. The OPs have over charged for RC, insurance and they have not given him the detail. So, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Request has been made to refund the excess amount charged for insurance, for RC and for PDI alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. He has also proved on record the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18 in support of his case.
8. The Ld. Counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 has submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and he himself has not paid the registration fee. He has further submitted that the complainant was asked to book the white colour for the vehicle and deposited Rs.500/- as booking amount for the white colour vehicle, but the complainant did not opt to book the vehicle rather sought time to make up his mind and thereafter he purchased grey colour vehicle of his own choice. There is no fault of the OPs. The complainant approached the OP for repair of fuel lid opening wire and nut-bold of his vehicle, but since he got repaired the vehicle from un-authorized mechanic. Therefore, the OP could not make the repair within warranty as the warranty was lapsed or void. Due to this reason, the complainant got annoyed and threatened the OP to drag in the Court. The complainant himself had given the feedback as ‘Very Good’, which is contradictory to his statement. The detail of the amount charged has already been given to the complainant and there is no concealment of any fact. Difference at the time of insurance occurred only due to error in portal, which is corrected later on. No extra charges were ever taken by the OPs from the complainant rather extended warranty was given to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has falsely dragged the OPs to the Court. Request has been made to dismiss the complaint.
9. It is not disputed rather proved that the complainant as per Ex.C-2 filled the form intend for purchase of vehicle through Canteen i.e. OP No.3 on 07 June, 2021. In this form, it has specifically been mentioned the colour. He was indenting to purchase the vehicle of white colour. As per Ex.C-3, issued by the OPs No.1 and 2, which is Availability Certificate, the white colour was available and as per this certificate, the Availability Certificate is valid for 14 June, 2021, meaning thereby the white colour was available till 14, June 2021. As per Ex.C-1, the complainant purchased the vehicle on 11.06.2021 i.e. prior to 14.06.2021. It is not disputed that insurance was done, which has been proved as Ex.C-2 and the policy was issued on 11.06.2021. Ex.C-6 is the receipt vide which the OP received Rs.13,000/- from the complainant. Ex.OP1/2 is the detail of the amount of Rs.13,000/- charged from the complainant which shows that the OPs have received Rs.250/- for PDI, Rs.5480/- for insurance, Rs.6260/- for RC, Rs.810 for extended warranty and Rs.200 for D/C and a separate receipt of Rs.250/- for PDI, which shows that this amount was received for Paint Detail Improver. The OP has given the detail in the written statement as per Ex.OP-1/2. As per Ex.C-4, the amount of Rs.5481/- were received by the OP No.4 for making the insurance and vide Ex.C-5 Rs.5227/- were to be deducted from the complainant, Rs.5481/- which was deducted as per the allegations of the complainant. Ex.C-5 was the insurance which was done later on. So, the OP No.4 has charged Rs.254/- in excess from the complainant, which was not refunded to him. The complainant has proved on record the SMS Ex.C-8 received from the RTA showing that Rs.5720 have been received from the complainant for the registration of the vehicle whereas as per Ex.OP-1/2, Rs.6260/- were charged from the complainant for the registration of the vehicle. In this way, Rs.540/- were received in excess by the OP from the complainant. The complainant has also written letters to the OP No.3 which has been proved as Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-12. The complainant has written the detail and over charging of the money by the OP from him, in these letters and as per the reply, the para wise comments of the dealer have already been sought by the OP No.3. The complainant has also proved on record monthly statement Ex.C-15 to prove that the complainant has got the petrol filled in his vehicle on the day of purchase i.e. 11.06.2021 for Rs.443.70/-, whereas the OPs have allegedly charged for petrol also. His contention is that there is no pre-delivery inspection and the charges for PDI have wrongly been charged by the OP. So, from the above discussion and from the documents proved on record by both the parties, it is proved that the complainant purchased the vehicle through OP No.3 only and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3. The OP No.3 directed the complainant to purchase the vehicle from OP No.1 which the complainant did and purchased the vehicle from OP No.1. OP No.4 prepared wrong insurance for Rs.5481/-, but thereafter another insurance was made for Rs.5227/-, but did not refund the amount of Rs.254/- to the complainant. It is proved that the OPs have charged Rs.540/- in excess for the registration of RC and Rs.250/- for PDI when there is no pre-delivery inspection proved by the OP. The complainant has also alleged that the OP No.4 has not issued him the original insurance policy. In this way, the complainant has proved his case that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No.1, 2 and 4. The complainant has already been given the detail of Rs.13,000/- charged from him vide Ex.OP1/2. So, therefore he is entitled to get the refund excess i.e. Rs.254/- from the OP No.4 and he is further entitled to get the refund of RC i.e. Rs.540/- and the amount of PDI i.e. Rs.250/-. He has been harassed for not giving him the white colour vehicle as demanded by him when he was assured that the same was available till 14 June, 2021, but thereafter refused due to non-availability, there is again deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2.
10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted qua OPs No.1, 2 and 4 only and OPs No.1, 2 and 4 jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant and OP No.4 is directed to issue the original insurance policy of said vehicle and to refund excess charged amount of insurance i.e. Rs.254/- to the complainant and OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.540/- and an amount of Rs.250/- to the complainant. Further, OPs No.1, 2 and 4 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
27.10.2022 Member President
