Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/270/2014

Prashant A Burge - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager of Nagashanti Cars Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.B.Ranabhare

05 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 05^th day of May 2017

 

Complaint No. 270/2014

 

Present:              1)      Shri.B.V.Gudli,                       President  

2)      Smt. Sunita,                           Member

-***-

 

Complainant/s:          Sri.Prashant Ashok Burge,

Age: 38 years, Occ: Business,

R/o.Galataga, Tq.Chikodi,

Dist. Belagavi.

 

(By Sri.M.B.Ranabhare, Advocate)

 

V/s.

                                                                     

Opponent/s:                Nagashanti Cars Pvt. Ltd.,

R/by its General Manager,

Khanapur Road, Udyanbag,

Belagavi.

 

(OP by Sri.T.T.Lankappannavar, Adv.)

 

 

 

 (Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)

 

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service in collecting excess amount by the OP.

          2) Upon issuance of notice from the forum the O.P appeared through his advocate and filed objections, affidavit and  produced some documents.

           3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit, written synopsis and produced some documents.  

4) We have also heard on both side and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of O.P & entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is in partly affirmative for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

            7)       On perusal of allegations of the complaint and affidavit of complainant, the complainant has purchased a new i10 Magna car of Hyundai company from OP on 19.11.2012 bearing chassis No.MALAM51DLCM285552 & Engine No.B4HACM580277. That, as per the terms of sale transaction the complainant has paid totally a sum of Rs.5,64,527/- on different dates. Accordingly the OP delivered the car to the complainant on 19.11.2012. At that time the complainant demanded the receipt for the amount paid by him. As per the request and demands made by the complainant, the OP issued receipts for Rs.21,842/- on 28.11.2012, Rs.4,54,770/- on 18.12.2012, Rs.67,255/- paid by the OP to transport department on 02.01.2012 and Rs.1850/- on 31.01.2013. Thus the OP has issued the receipts for an amount of Rs.5,48,717/-. Further the OP has made delay in payment of registration charges, road tax & cess totally Rs.66,494/-, the transport department has imposed a fine of Rs.761/-, which the OP has collected from complainant. Thus it is clear that the OP has received an excess amount of Rs.16,571/- from the complainant. Hence the complainant requested the OP to refund the excess amount or to give him the receipts towards the expenses incurred for the excess amount. But the OP never repaid the same. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against OP. 

8)      The OP filed his objections admitting that the complainant has totally paid Rs.5,64,527/- on different dates & also the complainant has taken delivery of the car on 19.11.2012 & separate account in respect of the receipt of amount and charges for various items including the cost of the vehicle is maintained by the OP. Further the OP contended that the OP has issued invoices to all items of goods sold to the complainant viz., vehicle, under chasis coating, extended warranty & extra fitting and accessories like music system, seat cover, wheel cover etc. The invoices cannot be issued to the customers in respect of TP charges, handling charges/identical charges/other charges, DD charges, because the OP rendered this service for the convenience & benefits of the customers & no amount out of this heads remains with OP. As these are expenses incurred in rendering the services. The OP gets the service at the earliest without any inconvenience and harassment. It is only for the sake of convenience & speedy disposal, the OP undertakes this service by engaging agents, drivers etc. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP company & prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

9)      On perusal of contents of complaint and objections filed by the parties there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the complainant has purchased a new i10 Magna car of Hyundai company from OP on 19.11.2012 & as per the terms of sale transaction the complainant has paid totally a sum of Rs.5,64,527/- on different dates. Accordingly the OP delivered the car to the complainant on 19.11.2012 to complainant. But the OP issued receipts for an amount of Rs.5,48,717/-. Further the OP has made delay in payment of registration charges, road tax & cess totally Rs.66,494/-, hence the transport department has imposed a find of Rs.761/-, which the OP has collected from complainant. Thus it is clear that the OP has received an excess amount of Rs.16,571/- from the complainant. The OP in his objections also accepted that OP has received an excess amount of Rs.16,571/- & the invoices cannot be issued to the customers in respect of TP charges, handling charges/identical charges/other charges, DD charges, because the OP rendered this service for the convenience & benefits of the customers & no amount out of this heads remains with OP. As these are expenses incurred in rendering the services.

10)    Though the OP accepted that he has received the excess amount in respect of TP charges, handling charges etc., but OP is silent about the delay in payment of registration charges, road tax & cess totally Rs.66,494/-, hence the transport department has imposed a fine of Rs.761/-. If, really the OP has not collected the excess amount from the complainant, there was no legal impediment to the OP to issue receipts for the said excess amount. In this regard the OP has not produced any documents i.e. brochure/ terms and conditions of sales or any evidence to prove that, there is no provision for issuing receipts for the alleged extra amount received from the complainant or from any customers. Hence if the complaint is allowed directing the OP to pay the excess amount Rs.16,571/- to the complainant with compensation it will meets the ends of justice.

          11) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.P has been proved.

          12)    Accordingly the following

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

The OP as shown in the cause title is hereby directed to pay Rs.16,571/- to the complainant, with 9% interest P.A. from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

Further the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

The award shall be complied within 30 days from today.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 05^th day of April 2017)

 

 

 

MSR