IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 55/S/2014.                      DATED : 29.04.2016.

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBER                : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.

COMPLAINANT                 : PRASANTA KUMAR KIRTANNIA,

  VILL. + P.O.- Phansidewa,

  Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin – 734 434.

O.P.                            : DURGA HYUNDAI,

  Durga Aumatives (P)  Ltd.,

   Dagapur, P.O. – Pradhan Nagar,

   Siliguri.  

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Self.

FOR THE OP                                  : Sri Sunil Kumar Sarkar, advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

The complainant’s case in brief is that on 23.11.2013 the OP approached him to purchase a car, and as he was agreeable to it, the OP gave him a quotation giving details about the cost of the car.  The complainant paid Rs.4,03,000/- through banker’s cheque, and the car was hypothecated to the Corporation Bank, Sevoke Road, Siliguri.  Three months later, the OP gave him a money receipt for a total of Rs.3,75,439/-.  The complainant claims that the OP duped him of Rs.27,561/-.  The complainant claims that after a minor accident, he approached the OP for servicing of the car, and he was informed orally that he would be required to pay charges of Rs.5,000/- for the repair.  When the complainant obtained return of the car, he found that the whole office car was of mis-matched colour.  Accordingly, he filed this case praying that the OP be directed to refund the said sum of Rs.4,03,000/-, and he prays for compensation and cost.  

The OP has filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant.  The OP categorically stated that the OP has given a quotation on 23.11.2013 and in the said quotation, the OP has mentioned that ex-showroom price of the said vehicle is of Rs.3,77,962/- (including VAT but excluding insurance premium), handling charge Rs.3,000/-

Contd……P/2

-:2:-

Insurance Rs.11,877/-, Registration Fee Rs.26,030/- i.e., total Rs.4,18,869/- and in the said quotation, the Insurance premium i.e., Rs.11,877/- was discounted as the complainant himself stated that we will pay the said amount Rs.11,877/- to the Insurance Company directly, the OP has also discounted a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of corporate discount and has also discounted the amount of Rs.1,992/- on account of cash discount and after discounting the said amount, total amount of Rs.4,03,000/- and accordingly the said amount was paid by the complainant to the OP. 

The OP has also stated that invoice cost of the car and ex-showroom price are different and amount regarding registration fee of Rs.19,956/- is not for total cost of the registration charge but only for tax for five years but there are some other costs regarding the payment of the authorized agent who given service for registering the name of the complainant in respect of the said vehicle.

The OP has also mentioned in it’s written version that if the complainant has not got money receipt in regard to fees of authorized agent who has given service for registration of the vehicle and if the complainant has not got money receipt regarding handling charge, he might have claim the same from the OP but he never claimed the said money receipt from the OP.

The OP has also stated that th3 OP never taken extra amount of Rs.27,561/- from the complainant. 

To prove the case the complainant has filed some documents mainly Quotation and papers connecting vehicles and photograph if the injured vehicle.

OP has filed evidence-in-chief.

It is admitted position is that the complainant has purchased the vehicle at the cost of Rs.4,03,000/- from the OP.  The money was sanctioned by the bank.  The Quotation dated 23.11.2013 details the price of the vehicle amounting Rs.4,03,000/-.  There is no disputes between the parties with the payment of Rs.4,03,000/-.  There is no allegation of the complainant regarding any defect of the vehicle.  Near about, After one month the vehicle suffered and insured and repairing was done and there was colour mismatching.  The OP is not any way corrected with the mis-matching of colour after repairing.  There is no allegation of manufacturing defect or defect of the vehicle at the time of purchase.  Only allegation is that OP has taken more money abut Rs.20,000/- and allegation is Unfair Trade Practice.  But the documentary evidences

Contd……P/3

-:3:-

regarding payment and purchase of the vehicle shows that there has been clear conversion of the payment agreed to be purchased and paid to the OP by the complainant through bank.  No question of unfair trade practice is reflected in the quotation.  It is a brought day-light transaction.  Accordingly, question of the deficiency in service does not arise.  The material on record fails to prove the claim of the complainant regarding Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

Accordingly, the case fails.

Hence, it is

                   O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.55/S/2014 is dismissed on contest against the OP but without cost.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.   

   -Member-                                                     -President-