Date of filing: 09.05.2016 Date of disposal: 23.03.2018
Complainant: Sibangshu Kumar Datta, S/o.Late Sunil Kanti Datta, Haji Danga, Tikarhat,
R.B.Chatterjee Road, Burdwan, Pin-713102.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party No.1: The Branch Manager of Chandrani Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Asansol Branch,
having its office at Plot No.634, 635, 636 and 637, Bogra Choti, NH-2,
near Chanda More, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713332.
2. Managing Director of Chandrani Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Chandrani Towers,
739 Anandapur, EM Bypass (Near Rubi Hospital), beside Calcutta
International School, Kolkata-700 017.
Present: Hon’ble President: Smt.Jayanti Maitra(Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Miss Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member : Dr. Tapan Kr. Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Santi Ranjan Hazra.
Appeared for the Opposite Parties: Authorized person Asit Kr. Mukhopadhyay.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the O.P. to return excess money of Rs.9,717/-, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards unfair trade practice, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The complainant’s case in short is that he went to O.P. No.1 for collect the information about the Honda Mobilio E-MT Diesel car for his personal use. The O.P. No.1 issued a Proforma Invoice dated 24.10.2014. From the said Proforma Invoice it will be evident that the total price (on road) of the car was assessed as Rs.8,67,707/-.
The complainant decided to purchase the said car and for this reason he applied for loan before the Bank of India, Burdwan Branch. On 10.9.2014 the complainant paid Rs.51,000/- to the O.P. No.1 through cheque of SBI, Burdwan University Branch towards booking of the said vehicle. Subsequently, the banker of the complainant i.e. Bank of India, Burdwan Branch paid an amount of Rs.8,67,707/- in favour of the O.P. No.1. As per demand on the part of the O.P. No.1 the complainant being a bonafide customer paid a total amount of Rs.9,18,707/- (Rs.51,000/- + Rs.8,67,707/-) to the O.P. No.1 towards purchase of the said vehicle.
Total amount payable to the office of the O.P. No.1 towards purchasing of the said vehicle was as under :-
- As per Sale Invoice dated 13.11.2014 Rs.8,33,500/-
- Towards Insurance Rs. 27, 278/-
- Towards Tax paid at Asansol vide No.KM 341468 Rs. 1,002/-
- Towards Tax paid at Burdwan vide No.ND609945 Rs. 45,883/-
- Towards Miscellaneous receipt dated 6.12.2014 vide No.BK654758 Rs. 340/-
- Towards Miscellaneous receipt dated 18.112014 vide No.KT310428 Rs. 482/-
- Towards registration of the vehicle vide receipt dated 16.12.2014 Rs. 503/-
Total Rs.9, 08,988/-
That complainant had to pay a total amount of Rs.9,08,988/- to the office of the O.P. No.1. But complainant had paid Rs.9,18,707/-. The complainant had paid an excess amount of Rs.9,719/- to the complainant. It was also mentioned here that the meter of the vehicle was defective since purchase. The complainant on innumerable occasions communicated with the office of the O.P. No.1 and requested then to return the excess amount. But the O.P. No.1 neither repaired the defective meter nor made refund the said excess amount on various pretext.
Complainant alleges that such activities of the O.P. No.1 is totally unfair and unjustified and in this manner the O.P. is trying to gain wrongfully the excess money of Rs.9,719/- without assigning any justified reason, which is nothing but unfair trade practice as per provision of the C.P. Act.
On 18.12.2015 the complainant sent a legal notice through his Ld. Advocate addressing to the O.P. No.1 & 2 and thereby requested to refund the said excess amount of Rs.9,719/- along with interest but they agreed to pay only Rs.2,163/-. Finding no other alternatives the complainant filed this case before this Forum for relies as stated above.
The O.P. No.1 & 2 jointly contested this case by filing written statement denying all the material allegations as alleged by the complainant. These O.Ps. submit that on or about 10.09.2014 the complainant approached to these O.P. i.e. O.P. No.1 and desire to purchase one numbered Honda Mobilio E-MT Diesel Car for his personal use. After satisfaction the complainant had paid Rs.51,000/- through cheque of SBI towards booking money and the complainant also stated to these O.Ps. that he want to take financial assistant from bank hence he is required a proforma invoice for taking loan. These O.P. hand over the proforma invoice to the complainant on 24.10.2014 in their official pad. The said invoice has some terms and conditions and the complainant is bound to obey those terms and conditions.
On the basis of the said proforma invoice the complainant took loan from the bank and one demand draft of Rs.8,67,707/- has been deposited before the O.P. No.1. Thus the complainant is paid total Rs.9,18,707/- (Rs.51,000/- + Rs.8,67,707/-). After receiving all amount these O.P. delivered the vehicle to the complainant and told to take necessary steps regarding temporary registration. The complainant making arrangement for temporary registration and afterwards for permanent registration and the agent of these O.ps. prepared the registration with a discount of Rs.3500/- as stated in the proforma invoice. The O.P. prepared the permanent registration through their agent and charged Rs.6500/-.
These O.P. further stated that Rs.49,266/- was taken from the complainant for the purpose of the permanent registration charges. The said permanent registration charges also includes of tax token smart card, blue book, miscellaneous receipt, HSRP and other charges which has been evident from, the documents filed by the complainant. Be it mentioned here that in the proforma invoice the insurance amount was written Rs.30,709/- but being a reputed businessman these O.ps. only has taken actual insurance amount i.e. Rs.27,278/-.
These O.ps. further stated that the complainant paid total Rs.9,18,707/- to the O.P. No.1 and bill has been raised by the O.P. No.1 and after compliance of all the formalities total amount raised Rs.9,16,163/-. So, complainant paid in excess Rs.2,163/- (Rs.9,18,707/-minus Rs.9,16,544/-) only to the O.P. No.1 and this amount is lying before the O.P. No.1. These O.ps. without any delay or any ill-intention had always agreed to refund the said excess amount of Rs.2,163/- and on this regard they wanted to refund the money through cheque which is prepared on 26.3.2015 but complainant did not collect the cheque from the O.P. No.1 inspite of several request. Hence, these O.Ps. have not done any unfair trade practice and no question arise regarding deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,163/- only from the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.1 is always agreed to pay the said amount to the complainant. Hence, this case.
DECISION WITH REASON
To prove this case the complainant filed evidence on affidavit along with documents and O.P. prays for treating his written version supported by affidavit as his evidence. Thereafter argument heard elaborately from both sides. On perusal of the evidence on record as well as documents filed by the parties it is not disputed that the complainant purchased the said vehicle (Honda Mobilio E-MT Diesel) in question. The supplied the Proforma Invoice to the complainant on 24.10.2014 for said vehicle. In that invoice total price shown is Rs.8,67,707/- (On road price). The complainant paid Rs.51,000/- for booking money of the said vehicle through cheque dated 10.09.2014 and the received voucher is also filed by the complainant. The complainant took loan of Rs.8,67,707/-from Bank of India for the said vehicle and the documents filed in this regard and said amount of Rs.8,67,707/- was also paid to the complainant through demand draft of Bank of India dated 13.11.2014. Thus the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.9,18,707/- (Rs.51,000/- + Rs.8,67,707/-) to the O.P. No.1 towards purchase of the said vehicle. The complainant has been able to prove this fact by producing the required documents. The complainant on 8.12.2015 sent a lawyer’s letter to the O.P. for refund of Rs.9,719/-. In reply the O.P. sent letter dated 18.12.2015 clarifying the transaction of Rs.9,16,544/- though the complainant actually paid Rs.9,18,707/- to the O.P. In that letter the bills raised by the O.P. for handling charges showing Rs.6,500/-, is challenged by the complainant. The complainant paid booking money of Rs.51,000/- through cheque and Rs.8,67,707/- was paid through bank. The O.P. received total Rs.9,18,707/- from the complainant and it is admitted by the O.P. On perusal of letter dated 18.12.2015 it found that Rs.8,33,500/- was charged for Ex-showroom price for car, Rs.27,278/- was charged for Insurance, Rs.6500/- was charged for Handling charges and Rs.49, 266/- was charged for Permanent Registration of the vehicle. The total bill raised by the O.P. i.e. Rs.9,16,544/-. But the handling charges of Rsd.6500/- received by the O.P. unnecessarily and O.P. failed to justify as to why the charge of Rs.6500/- has been received. However, O.P. in their written version admits that Rs.2,163/- (Rs.9,18,707/- minus Rs.9,16,544/-) is being received as excess amount from the complainant. Therefore, the O.P. prays that said amount is lying with the O.P. and O.P. is always ready and agree to pay the same. On scrutiny of the papers and specially the letter dated 18.12.2015 we hold that the O.P. is not justified in charging of Rs.6,500/-. In this regard complainant cited a judgment of Hon’ble SCDRC, Punjab in First Appeal No.977/2014 wherein the Hon’ble State Forum holds that ‘such excess payment from the complainant received by the O.P. is nothing but unfair trade practice and O.P. should refund the excess amount to the complainant’.
After hearing both sides and on perusal of the evidence as well as documents filed by the parties this Forum find that the complainant has been able to prove his case and he is entitled to get relief which we calculate that O.P. should refund the excess amount of Rs.6500/- (Handling Charges) plus Rs.2,163/- i.e. total Rs.8,663/- to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to get compensation for mental pain and harassment and also entitled to get litigation cost. Thus the complain case succeeds in part. C.F. paid is correct.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the case be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps. but without any cost. The O.Ps. are directed to refund Rs.8,663/- to the complainant as excess amount which is received by the O.ps. from the complainant. The O.Ps. are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- towards mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. The above directions be complied with within 45 days from this date of order, failing which the entire awarded amount will carry 9% p.a. interest for the default period and the complainant will be at liberty to put this award in execution in accordance with law.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Nivedita Ghosh) (Dr. Tapan Kr. Tripathy)
Member Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
