The compliant is in respect realization of delivery charges. The averements in the complaint are as follows.
The complainant had purchased a car from opposite party on 13-11-2015. Apart from the actual value of car the opposite party charged Rs.8900/- as delivery charges. Though the opposite party was informed by complainant that the delivery charge is already abolished by company and opposite party is not entitled to realize any amount as delivery charges, the opposite party with out caring the submission of complainant realized Rs.8900 as delivery charges. This shows deficiency of service of the opposite party. Thus the opposite parties liable to repay Rs.8900/- realized by them as delivery charges together with Rs.1000 as compensation for mental agony and cost.
The opposite party filed version as follows
It is true that the complainant had purchased a car from the shop of opposite party. The allegation of complainant that opposite party realized delivery charges from complainant is false. The complainant had booked the vehicle paying Rs.1000/- (Thousand only) on 12-11-2015 and on 13-11-2015 the vehicle was delivered to him. At the time of delivering the car he had been served with bill settlement sheet, invoice of Kerala Value Added Tax and Centre service Tax. This opposite party has never realized any excessive amount from complainant. This opposite party is only dealer of the company. In the agreement executed between this opposite party and the manufacturer it is provided that the freight charge and logistics service tax for taking the vehicle from manufacturing units to dealers unit . The freight charge of the complainant comes to 7807.02. The service tax of that amount at the rate of 14 percent would be 1098.98. So the total amount would be 8900 and that is to be paid by the complainant. So this opposite party realized only legally entitled charge which is provided in the agreement between the dealers and manufactures. Realization of delivery charges is not prohibited by government . There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and complaint is to be dismissed.
Complainant and opposite party filed affidavits and Ext. A1 to A6 and B1 to B3 were marked.
Points arise for consideration
(1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
(2) Reliefs and cost.
Point No.1Admittedly complainant has purchased a car from the opposite party and at the time of paying the car the opposite party realized and amount of Rs.8900/- (Eight thousand nine hundred only) as delivery charges. It is asserted by complainant that at the time of realization of the value of the vehicle the opposite parry realized an excess amount of Rs..8900/- (Eight thousand nine hundred only) as delivery charges. The realization of this amount which is shown in Ext. A2, the settlement sheet issued to the customer is practically admitted by the opposite party. It is claimed by complainant that there is prohibition for realizing delivery charges . To prove the illegality of the action of the opposite party complainant produced Ext. A3 and A4 . Ext. A3 is issued by transport commissioner Telangana state and it is directed by the transport commissioner there in that apart from ex- showroom price no other amount shall be realized from the customers. Ext. A4 is a public notice issued by transport department Delhi directing the dealers not to collect any excess amount in the name of logistic or handling charges etc. As per these documents the dealers shall realize only ex showroom price alone but directions given in Ext. A3 and A4 are not binding on the dealers in Kerala because the authorities under Ext. A3 and A4 have no right to impose any such direction on the dealers of Kerala . There for on the basis of Ext. A3 and A4 we can not come to the conclusion that realization of delivery charges is illegal.
But it is significant to note that Kerala state transport commissioner has issued a circular No.16/2016 dated 5/5/2016 where in it is made clear that the realization of handling charge or delivery charge is illegal. Hence it is made clear that in Kerala, state also the prohibition against realization of delivery charges has come in to effect and thus the opposite party is not entitled to realize the delivery charges from the customers. There for the realization of delivery charges illegally from the customers can be considered as deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. If that be so opposite party is liable to return the delivery charges realized to the complainant together with compensation and cost for the proceedings. Point is decided accordingly.
Point No.2
On the basis of the findings of the above points we allow this complaint and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.8900/ - (Eight thousand nine hundred only) realized by them from complainant as delivery charges. The opposite party shall pay Rs.9900/- also as compensation for deficiency of service on the part of opposite party together with cost of Rs.1000/ (One thousand only)-. The above amount shall be paid by the opposite party to complainant with in 30 days from the date of receipt the copy of this order failing which they shall pay the same with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from that date till realization.
Dated this 31st day of January , 2017.
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A6
Ext.A1 : Photo copy of RC bearing registration No.KL – 71- B – 8631.
Ext.A2 : Customer Settlement sheet.
Ext A3 : Circular of the office of the transport commissioner Telangana State, Hyderabad.
Ext A4 : Public Notice issued Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Ext A5 : Paper News.
Ext A6 : Paper News.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1 : Documents for car registration.
Ext.B2 : Retail invoice
Ext.B3 : Dealer ship agreement.
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
