Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/139/2015

Sukhram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cargo Motors - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :    139 of 30.12.2015

Date of Decision:                    :     09.06.2016

Sukhram, son of Lachman Dass son of Gondha Ram, resident of Village Abiana Khurd, Tehsil Anandpur, District Ropar.

                                                                             …..Complainant

VERSUS

1.       Manager Cargo Motors, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, Pin 144517.

2.       Vinay Malohtra, Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Cargo House, Near B.S.F. Chowk Road, Jalandhar.

                                                                             ... Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:

For complainant   :         In person

For OP No.1                  :         Sh.Avtar Manmohanjit Singh, Advocate

For OP No.2                  :         Stands DAW vide order dated 05.05.2016.

ORDER

SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

1.       In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased Tata Safari Car, having registration No.P-12-U-7839, on 15.01.2014 from O.P. No.1. The price of the car was 8,95,000/- at the time of its purchase. The manager of the O.P. No.1 told him that he has to get the said car registered through O.P No.1 and asked him to deposit the full amount. It is stated that the cost of the car was Rs. 8,95,000 and after deducting Rs.25,000/- i.e. cost of the old car, the complainant was to pay Rs. 8,70,000/- to the OPs. However, the OP No.1 had taken total amount of Rs.9,44,000/- including registration charges from him.  Out of which it took Rs.58,709/- as registration charges, whereas, the total charges for registration was Rs.48,001, as is evident from the receipt Ex.C7. In this way, the OP No.1 had taken sum of Rs.10,708/- in excess as registration charges and in total it had taken a sum of Rs.35,708 (Rs.25,000/- + Rs.10,708) in excess from him. When he came to know about this the said fact, he approached the OP No.1 but it did nothing it, he approached the OP No.2 who gave him a cheque of Rs.4500/- and sought time of two months to pay the remaining amount. He encashed the said cheque as is evident from photocopy of his passbook annexed along with the complaint. The OPs have still to pay a sum of Rs.31,208/ to him but by not paying this amount, the OPs are deficient in providing services. Therefore, OPs be directed to pay Rs.31,208/-, which they have charged in excess from him and also to pay compensation for the inconvenience caused to him alongwith the litigation expenses.

2.       On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.1 has filed written version taking preliminary objections that; the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the complaint; that the replying opposite party is neither deficient in service nor is guilty of any unfair trade practice; that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with ulterior motive to harass the opposite party; that in the present complaint, complicated and complex questions of facts are involved; that the complaint is false, vexatious, frivolous and baseless. On merits, it is stated that complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from the answering O.P and the price of vehicle was Rs.8,95,967/- ( as per invoice). The assertion of the complainant that the answering OP was to pay Rs.25,000/- for exchange of the old vehicle is wrong because it had not purchased any old vehicle from the complainant as alleged. He had not disclosed the registration of the old vehicle, model and make of the vehicle. It is wrong that the complainant was to pay Rs.8,70,000/- only, as per ledger account Rs.36,484/- was paid as insurance premium, Rs.900/- for temporary registration fee, Rs.50,801/- for registration charges of the vehicle, i.e. Rs.48001/- as registration fee plus other charges. Complainant has wrongly alleged that the answering O.P. had charged Rs.58,709/- from him. He was given a rebate of Rs.49,841/-, which is duly reflected in the ledger account. The complainant has wrongly alleged that a sum of Rs.35,708/- has been charged in excess from him. The answering O.P. has no concern regarding the payment of Rs.4500/- by the O.P. No.2 to complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complainant have been denied by the answering O.P and prayed that complaint be dismissed with special costs.

3.       On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, alongwith attested copy of bill Ex.C-1, rough estimate Ex.C-2, payment receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5, copy of bank account statement Ex.C-6, bill dated 28.12.2013 Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.  Learned counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence affidavit of I.D. Sharma, General Manager Ex.OP1/A alongwith document i.e. authority letter Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Baldeep Kumar, Asstt. General Manager Ex.OP1/B, ledger account Ex.OP1/2, statement Ex.OP1/3 and closed the evidence.

4.       The proceedings against OP No.2 stands dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.05.2016.

5.       We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP No.1 and have also gone through the record on the file, carefully.

6.       Admittedly, complainant purchased the car in question from the O.P. No.1. The grievance of the complainant is that O.P. No.1 had charged a sum of Rs.35,708 in excess from him at the time of purchase of the car. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 vehemently argued that from the documents placed on record, it is clear that the O.P. No.1 had not charged any excess amount from the complainant. Rather, it had given discount of Rs.49,841/- to him at the time of purchase of the said car.  Therefore, this frivolous complaint filed by complainant, be dismissed with heavy costs. 

As per invoice dated 28.12.2013, Ex.C7. The price of the car in question was of Rs.8,95,967. The complainant has contended that he has sold his old car to the O.P. No.1 for Rs.25,000/-, but has not placed on record any documentary proof regarding selling of his old car to the O.P. No.1. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this contention of the complainant.  In the copy ledger account, Ex.OP1/2, OP No.1 had debited Rs. 8,95,967/-, as price of the car in question, Rs.36,484/- on as insurance premium, Rs.9,348/- for accessories, Rs.900/- for temporary registration fee, Rs.50,801/- as registration charges i.e. Rs.48,001/- as registration fee and other charges, which comes out to Rs.9,93,841/- and had credited Rs.3,44,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, total of the same comes out to Rs.9,44,967/-.  By adding Rs.49,841/- i.e. discount given to the complainant, it comes out of Rs.9,93,841/-.  From the document i.e. Registration detail Ex.C-1, it is evident that the OP No.1 had charged Rs.48001/- as Registration Fee, for getting the said care registered.  In written version, in para No.2 on merits, OP No.1 has stated that it has taken Rs.50801/- as Registration charges which includes Rs.48001/- as registration and other charges.  It means OP No.1 had taken Rs.2800/- on account of other charges, but the details of the same has not been placed on record to show how it had taken the said amount. Taking this fact into consideration, we do not hesitate to conclude that OP No.1 had taken Rs.2800/- in excess from the complainant.  Thus, OP No.1 is deficient in providing services to complainant and it is not only liable to refund Rs.2800/- but also liable to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses. 

7.       In view of the above discussion, we allow this complaint against OP No.1, who is directed to pay to the complainant in the following manner:-

          1.       To refund Rs.2,800/- as charged in excess.

          2.       To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation.

          3.       To pay Rs.3,000/- to complainant as litigation expenses.      

The OP No.1 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which interest @9% per annum shall be paid to complainant on the awarded amount besides litigation expenses.  

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

Dated:  09.06.2016                           (NEENA SANDHU)

                                                          President

 

                                                          (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                                                          Member