BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.358 of 2015

Date of Instt. 21.08.2015

Date of Decision : 25.07.2016

Manish Kumar Goyal, aged about 36 years son of Raghunandan Goyal R/o 612-L, Model Town, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1.Dada Motors, GT Road, Opp.Haveli, District Jalandhar through its Manager/Incharge etc.

2.M/s Nissan Motor India Pvt Ltd., ASV Ramana Towers, 52, Venkatnaryana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600017 through its MD/Director/Inchare, etc.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.APS Pathania Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.IMP Singh, Law Officer on behalf of OP No.1.

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased a car Datsun Go.Petrol bearing temporary registration No.PB-08-BV-Temp 8488, Engine No.7419808 Chasis No.MOHZB AAD0E3002992 colour white from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 8.4.2014 for a sum of Rs.4,20,890/-. The complainant submitted that OP also charged Rs.5000/- under the head other charges. The said vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 12.5.2014 vide delivery challan dated 12.5.2014. The OP charged Rs.5000/- under head other charges are meant for logistic charges. Complainant submitted that as per judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the amount of logistic charges can not be charged by any car dealer or authorized representative at the time of sale of the vehicle. Thereafter, complainant approached the office of OP No.1 to refund the amount but they disclosed that the OP can not charge logistic charges from the purchaser of the vehicle and they did not refund this amount to the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the Ops to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- and litigation expenses Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum till the realization of amount.

2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complaint filed by the complainant is absolutely false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed only to harass the OP without any fault on its part. OP submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has not passed any judgment nor has given any directions to the dealers or District Transport Authorities or Government regarding the logistics charges of the new vehicles sold by the dealers. The complainant has been misusing the process of law. It is correct that vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 12.5.2014 vide delivery challan dated 12.5.2014. It is wrong that an extra amount of Rs.5000/- was taken from the complainant rather it was the cost of transportation of the vehicle from the manufacturer to the dealer. OP submitted that complainant could not produce any judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India about the logistic charges. As such, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.2 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, Sh.Indermohan Pal Singh, Law Officer of opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/1 to ExOP1/11 and closed evidence.

6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased vehicle car Datsun Go.Petrol bearing temporary registration No.PB-08-BV-Temp-8488 from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 8.4.2014 for a sum of Rs.4,20,890/-. The complainant submitted that OP also charged Rs.5000/- under the head other charges as per invoice Ex.C1 as well as Ex.C7. The said vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 12.5.2014 vide delivery challan Ex.C6. The OP charged Rs.5000/- under head other charges are meant for logistic charges. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that as per judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the amount of logistic charges can not be charged by any car dealer. Complainant approached the OP No.1 to refund the amount but they disclosed that the OP can charge logistic charges from the purchaser of the vehicle and they did not refund this amount to the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the OP No.1 is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has not passed any judgment nor has given any directions to the dealers or District Transport Authorities or Government regarding the logistics charges of the new vehicles sold by the dealers. The complainant is misusing the process of law. The OP admitted that complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle from OP No.1 and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 12.5.2014 vide delivery challan dated 12.5.2014 Ex.C6. The OP has charged Rs.5000/- as cost of transportation of the vehicle from the manufacturer factory to the dealer. Learned counsel for the OP submitted that complainant could not produce produce any judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India about the logistic charges. As such, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased one car Datsun Go bearing temporary registration No.PB-08-BV-Temp-8488 from OP No.1 vide invoice Ex.C7 on payment of Rs.4,20,890/-. The said car was delivered to the complainant vide delivery challan Ex.C6 dated 12.5.2014. As per invoice Ex.C7 as well as receipt/voucher Ex.C1, the OP has charged logistic charges Rs.5000/- from the complainant as transportation charges of the vehicle from the factory premises of the manufacturer i.e. OP No.2 to the showroom of OP No.1. The complainant has alleged that the OP could not charge the logistic charges as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But complainant could not produce any such judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held the charging of logistic/transportation charges from the buyers of the vehicle as illegal or not justifiable. Learned counsel for the complainant also stated at bar that he could not produce any such judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide which any directions have been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to the Transport department/dealer of the transport vehicle or to the government for not charging logistic charges from the buyer of the vehicle.

10. Consequently, we hold that complainant has failed to prove his averments in the complaint. As such, complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

25.07.2016 Member President