DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.146/16
Sh. YSVV RAJAN
s/O Shri Y. Umameshwara Rao
R/o N-230, Ground Floor
Near N Block Market
Greater Kailash-1
New Delhi-110048. ….Complainant
Versus
1. Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
52, Ground Floor, Ring Road
Near Haldirams
Lajpat Nagar part-III
New Delhi-110024.
2. Mahindra & Mahindra Automotive Division
Automotive Sector, Mahindra Towers-3rd Floor
Akruli Road, Kandivali (east)
Mumbai-400101. ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 17.05.2016
Date of Order : 13.06.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
Complainant has requested to pass an award for directing the OPs i.e. Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. And Mahindra & Mahindra Automobile Division (hereinafter referred to as OP-1 & OP-2 respectively) to refund a sum of Rs.7500/- which was charged illegally towards logistic charges; sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- towards mental and physical harassment; and a sum of Rs.3300/- towards litigation charges.
The facts of the complaint are briefly stated as under:-
The complainant purchased a vehicle namely Mahindra Scorpio S-10 model bearing registration No.DL1CS7799 from OP-1. An invoice bearing No. INVI5J000943 dated 7.12.14 for Rs.11,95,000/- alongwith a debit note for the sum of Rs.197,171/- dated 7.12.2014 towards insurance registration, Logistics and other charges. As such, it is found that the OP-1 charged around Rs.7500/- towards logistic charges. The complainant came to know that the Transport Deptt. –Govt. of NCT of Delhi had issued a Public Notice stating that “It has come to notice of this office that many of the Motor Vehicle Dealers in NCT of Delhi are levying additional charges such as logistic/handling charges etc. from the customers, which is not authorised by the manufacturers, is in violation of the terms and conditions of Trade Certificate and Empowerment of Self-Registering Authorities”. On this, the complainant vide e-mail dated 9.2.2015 requested both the OPs to refund the said amount of Rs. 7500/-. It is further added that realising the wilful and intentional evasive, approach the complainant left with no option but to serve upon a legal notice dated 21.3.2015 on the OPs. No response was received. It is evident that the OPs are squarely liable under the purview of deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
OP-1, on the other hand, took preliminary submissions stating that the complaint is annexed with an undated Public Notice. It is also exhorted that whatever the charges levied are charged with the authorisation of OP-2 i.e. the manufacturer. OP-1 further asserted that whatever, the nomenclature that may be given is immaterial as said charges are tendered towards the cost of the vehicle into and fro till the final product reaches in the hands of customers. OP further stated that the OP-2 has sent a letter to Transport Deptt. In this regard, same is annexed herewith and may be seen at p-8/C of the complaint. The OP-1 has also raised issue of territorial jurisdiction. OP-1 also denied the applicability of Public Notice referred to by complainant.
The OP-2 vide its reply denies and disputes all the facts and grounds stated in Consumer Complaint except the matters of facts and record as specifically admitted hereinafter. The OP-1 is an authorised dealer of the answering OP-2 and relationship of the OP-2 and OP-1 is on “Principal to Principal basis” only. The OP-2 cannot be held responsible for any alleged unfair trade practice/deficiency in service by the OP-1. OP-2 further added that complainant has not made out any single allegation against the manufacturer i.e. OP-2; therefore, OP-2 has been wrongly arrayed as party to the instant complaint. The OP-2 further specifically stated that the logistic charges etc. to tune of Rs.7500/- are illegal as per the undated Public Notice of the Transport Deptt. Of GNCT of Delhi. It was also vehemently stated by OP-2 that any charge except that of cost of vehicles do not come to the kitty of the OP-2. Hence, any material charges levied by OP-1, he should be held liable only not OP-2.
All the parties filed written submissions as well as evidence in affidavit. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the entire gamut of issues minutely and thoughtfully considered the arguments made before us. The complainant vide its rejoinder-cum-evidence by way of affidavit denies the contents and averments made in written statement except that same are specifically admitted herein. It was averred by complainant in this evidence by way of affidavit that OP-1 is liable for contempt of court/perjury by stating the wrong facts on oath. AU-contairie, to the contention of OP-2 who has not authorised to levy the “logistic charges”. Further the alleged letter undated and unverified is not addressed to the Transport Deptt. The complainant has sought reply from Transport Deptt. to this effect whether such letter was written to the Transport Deptt. The Deptt. vide its RTI application reply dated 1.12.2016 specifically denied the receipt of such letter in the Deptt. Both, the RTI application and its reply is exhibited (-1/1 (colly). The complainant has also denied the charge of OP-1 that the complaint may be rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction. But the Commission finds that the OP-1 is located in the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission hence the charges are rejected. The Commission also examined the limitation aspect also and finds that same is filed within time. It is also noticed that the OP-1 has raised substantial point of fact that the complainant has relied upon the undated Public Notice. The complainant vide its evidence has categorically mentioned that the Public Notice which is circular of Transport Deptt. dated 30.12.2011 was published and same is exhibited here C-1/4(colly). The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 20.4.2012 also took notice of said Public Notice and mentioned it in its judgment. Therefore, veracity of this Public Notice is unchallenged and remained substantial to the extent of reliability. The OP-2 also quoted the para 10 of above mentioned judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of C.Raja Ram Advocate & Anr. Vs. GNCT of Delhi & Ors. But the OP-2 failed to appreciate the tone and tenor of the said para. The Hon’ble High Court just mentioned that if any vehicle dealer is providing extra in terms of services, goods, fuels etc. and purchasers agree to pay. Therefore, this fact does not match with the contentions of the complainant who is challenging the logistic charges and no substantial services/fuel etc. was provided by the dealer. Moreover, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in concluding para stated as under:-
“We accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the direction that in the event of the respondents No.1 & 2 Transport Department/GNCTD receiving any complaint of any vehicle dealer charging anything extra/ commission from the vehicle purchaser for providing the services of registration, the respondents No. 1 & 2 shall enquire into the said complaint and if find any merit therein, shall take action in accordance with law against such vehicle dealers.”
It would be seen from the above that the Transport Deptt. alongwith Govt. of NCT of Delhi are bound to take action against the dealer who had violated the terms and conditions of Licence provided under Rule 35 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. These dealers are required to give undertaking to the Transport Deptt.:-
The Transport Deptt. has to take necessary action as it is established beyond doubt that the Concept Automobile had charged around Rs.7500/- additional undue amount under the name of logistic charges etc.
This Commission also examined the liability of the OP-1 vis-a-vis facts of the complaint. After studying the contention of OP-2, it is the OP-1 who was charging the logistic charges at its own. Moreover, he tried to deflect the issue towards OP-2 and tried to take the shelter of letter found annexed with his reply asserting that OP-2 had written to Transport Deptt. in response to Public Notice referred above. OP-1 has patently lied. Further also, OP-1 stated while replying that the said charges were being collected with the authorisation of OP-2. Here also, OP-1 vividly stated wrong facts. Considering the fair stand of OP-2 with regard to facts mentioned whether it is of letter written to Transport Department and wrongful charge of logistic etc.; OP-2 is discharged of the onus of liability.
As regards to liability of the OP-1, this Commission after considered all the facts and circumstances in the matter, do feel that the stand of OP-1 is beyond comprehension for the lies/wrong facts, OP-1 is directed to refund the amount charged under the logistic charges i.e. Rs.7500/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of invoice and Rs.2,00,000/- is levied as compensation and penalty for putting the wrong facts before this Commission from the receipt of this order within 2 months failing which rate of interest shall be levied @10% p.a. till its realisation. The OP-2 may also consider for cancellation of dealership of its product as OP-1 has tried to put blame on the manufacturer.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
