BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.396 of 2014

Date of Instt. 11.11.2014

Date of Decision :27.04.2015

Amandeep Singh Arneja son of Jasbir Singh Arneja R/o H.No.273, Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, GT Road, Bye-Pass, Opp.Indian Oil Complex, Jalandhar-144009.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Goyal Automotive Ltd, GT Road, Pragpur, Jalandhar through its Authorized Signatory/Manager.

2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd, registered office at Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT, Industrial Part, Irrugattu Kottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchi Puram District Tamilnandu-602105.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Vikas Sood Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.MS Sachdeva Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a car Eon-Dlite+of Hyundai Company of which the opposite party No.1 is dealer having its sale and service centre of the cars with the name and address as given above and opposite party No.2 is the car company supplying the car to the sale centre. The complainant purchased the above said car vide invoice No.H-201200755 dated 20.12.2012 from opposite party No.1 and made a full payment of consideration/price as asked by the opposite party. The opposite party No.1 charged Rs.4500/- over and above the consideration/price charged for the car as other charges/logistic charges which the opposite parties could not charge as per law and therefore adopted the unfair trade practice by illegally charging Rs.4500/- from the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price over charged by opposite party No.1 i.e Rs.4500/-. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply contesting opposite party No.1 simply denied that any amount is to be refunded or there is any unfair trade practice on its part. In its written reply, opposite party No.2 pleaded that it deals with all the dealers on principal to principal basis and errors or omission, if any, at the time of retailing or servicing the car is responsibility of the concerned dealer. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complaint in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

6. The real dispute between the parties is regarding charging of Rs.4500/- by opposite party No.1 at the time of sale of the car. In case opposite party No.1 has charged any excess amount, opposite party No.2 can not be blamed. So we are to see if opposite party No.1 has charged the excess amount of Rs.4500/- from the complainant or not? In its written reply, the opposite party No.1 has not explained charging of Rs.4500/- by it from the complainant although it has taken preliminary objection that legal proposition of logistic charges is to be interpreted correctly. Ex.C1 is retail invoice and from perusal of it, it is evident that Rs.4500/- have been charged by opposite party No.1 on account of other charges. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 has not explained the other charges of Rs.4500/- which were charged from the complainant at the time of sale. The opposite party No.1 has itself placed on record statement of account Ex.OP1 but in the statement of account Ex.OP1, the amount of Rs.4500/- is not at all shown. So it means that the amount of Rs.4500/- received by opposite party No.1 from the complainant at the time of sale has not been the accounted for by it in its account. So in our opinion, charging of Rs.4500/- from the complainant besides the price of the car on account of other charges constitute unfair trade practice.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party No.1 is directed to refund Rs.4500/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of invoice Ex.C1 i.e 20.2.2012 till the date of payment. It is clarified that interest amount is being granted by way of compensation. The complainant is also awarded Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

27.04.2015 Member Member President