Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/177

Narinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

CM Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ramesh Kumar Kaushal Adv.

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

RUPNAGAR

 

Consumer Complaint No.        :177of 01.12.2022

Date of Decision                     :24.03.2023

 

Narinder Kumar aged about 53 years son of Rameshwar Dass resident of House No.54 Ward No.6, Morinda Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar.

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

 

CM Auto Sales Private Limited Chandigarh Road Rangilpur Tehsil and District Rupnagar through its Manager.

      …Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.Ramesh Kumar Kaushal, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh.Pardeep Mittal, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER  KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. In the present complaint, the counsel for complainant has averred that complainant purchased Brezza ZXI+ bearing registration No.PB-87-7453 from Op worth Rs.1428000/- and also exchanged his old vehicle bearing No.PB12-W-7889 and price of old car of Rs.419000/- was adjusted in the price of new Brezza car.  At the time of purchase of Brezza car, the back lights i.e. reverse gear light and dipper lights were not working properly of both sides.  OP also received Rs.2000/- as non- refundable after state NOC.  As old car of complainant was sold to one Jaspreet Singh of golden city near Pal Public School Sirhind District Fatehgarh Sahib i.e. within Punjab State, so question of receiving amount of Rs.2000/- was not arises to OP and same was returnable to complainant.  At the time of selling said Brezza car, Op has received excess payment of Rs.14153/- from complainant on the pretext of registration charges.  Complainant has requested the OP to return the amount of Rs.15153/- but nothing was done by OP.  Lastly prayer has been made that the Op be directed to pay Rs.14153/- received excess amount from complainant and pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses with interest @18% PA till its realization. 
2. OP has appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has concealed the material fact from this Forum.  Earlier complainant has raised the issue of excess amount and on checking of record and other documents, the answering OP has already made refund of excess amount of Rs.54257/- to complainant against proper receipt and complainant has signed the said receipt of refund of Rs.54257/- admitting the excess payment of Rs.54257/-.  Now complainant has no right to agitate once again that Rs.14153/- has been paid by him as excess payment.  The answering Op never received Rs.14153/- as excess for registration charges.  Answering Op has received Rs.89443/- from complainant as registration charges.  Out of this amount of Rs.89,443/- amount of Rs.87380/- were paid to Transport Department as registration fees.  Out of remaining amount of Rs.2063/-, Rs.1063/- were received as fees for affixation of number plate and Rs.1000/- were received as service charges.  Thus, no excess amount was received from complainant as wrongly alleged by him. On merits, other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 
3. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective documents.
4. We have heard learned the parties with their valuable assistance and have also gone through the record carefully.
5. During arguments, the contentions of learned counsel for parties are similar to the pleadings, so no need to reiterate the same.  The main controversy in the present complaint is whether the OP has deficient in providing service to complainant or not?  To solve this issue, we have gone through Ex.OP-2 and observed that Ops refund the excess amount of Rs.54257/- under proper receipt and as per cheque/DD dated 08.09.2022.  Further, as per Ex.OP-5, it transpired that OP has received Rs.87380/-on account of Smart card fee, New Registration, hypothecation addition, postal fee, scan fee, society fee, MV Tax.  In Ex.OP-6, the Op has given full details of amount received from complainant.  On the other hand, the complainant has failed to produce any cogent and convincing record/documents showing that how the Op has charged excess amount. 
6. It is duty of the complainant to prove his case and stand on his own legs.  All these issues are not proved by the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant is unable to produce any expert report that the production of any document proving that Op has charged excess amount from him. 
7. Keeping in view the above said facts of discussion, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his complaint from all angles, accordingly, the present complaint stands dismissed with no orders as to costs.
8. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated:24.03.2023

          (Ramesh Kumar Gupta)                  (Kuljit Singh)

          Member                                           President