BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.424 of 2015

Date of Instt. 30.09.2015

Date of Decision : 06.09.2016

Nikhil Sharma son of Rakesh Kumar R/0 172-A-1, Master Tara Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Goyal Hyundai, Goyal Automotive Pvt Ltd., Dealer of M/s Hundai Motors, District Jalandhar.

2.Goyal Automotive Pvt lTd., through its MD, GT Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar.

3.Manaing Director, Hyundai Motors India Ltd., Irrugattukottai, NH No.4, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu-602117.

4.M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd., through its MD, Irrugattukottai, NH No.4, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu-602117.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Rahul Sharma Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Jatinder Sharma Adv., counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2.

Service of Ops No.3 & 4 dispensed with.

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 the complainant purchased Hyundai Creta Diesel Car vide bill No.VC/314 dated 24.7.215 from OP No.1. The complainant submitted that the Ops No.1 & 2 used unfair trade practices, firstly escalated ex-showroom price of the car by an amount of Rs.4500/- under head 'handling charges'. Secondly, the Ops No.1 & 2 further pressurized the complainant to get insurance from their showroom and charged Rs.4218/- excessively to the prevailing rate of insurance, thirdly Ops No.1 & 2 charged Rs.5315/- excess for the registration of the vehicle in question, fourthly the Ops No.1 & 2 charged Rs.15,000/- for accessories. Thereby, the Ops have charged Rs.29,033/- excessively from the complainant. The complainant approached the Ops, number of times and also served legal notice dated 27.8.2015 through registered post upon the Ops to refund the aforesaid amount excessively charged from the complainant but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.29033/- excessively charged amount received from the complainant. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed a written reply, pleaded that the Ops never received any excess amount from the complainant as alleged by him. The amount which was received from the complainant, was as per bills which were provided to the complainant. The Ops received Rs.11,86,529/- as per list provided by Goyal Automotive Pvt Ltd., again proper bill. Rs.35,748/- was received towards insurance amount by the insurance company which was done as per request of the complainant. No excess amount of Rs.4500/- was ever received by the OP. No extra registration charges of Rs.5315/- as alleged by the complainant, were received by the OP from the complainant. As per Punjab Motor Vehicle Department Rs.83,522/- were received towards registration of the vehicle in question which is duly prescribed in the bills, so provided to the complainant. No excess rate of accessories was ever received from the complainant as alleged. Rather, the complainant was returned Rs.3550/- which were found excessive and duly received by the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavits Ex.OA alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O10 and closed evidence.

5. 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.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased Hyundai Creta Diesel Car vide bill No.VC/314 dated 24.7.215 Ex.O2 from OP No.1. The complainant submitted that the Ops No.1 & 2 used unfair trade practices, firstly escalated ex-showroom price of the car by an amount of Rs.4500/- under head 'handling charges'. Secondly, the Ops No.1 & 2 further pressurized the complainant to get insurance from their showroom and charged Rs.4218/- excessively to the prevailing rate of insurance, thirdly Ops No.1 & 2 charged Rs.5315/- excess for the registration of the vehicle in question, fourthly the Ops No.1 & 2 charged Rs.15,000/- for accessories. Thereby, the Ops have charged Rs.29,033/- excessively from the complainant. The complainant approached the Ops, number of times and also served legal notice dated 27.8.2015 Ex.C2 through registered post to the Ops, postal receipts of which are Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 to refund the aforesaid amount excessively charged from the complainant but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the Ops No.1 & 2 is that the Ops never received any excess amount from the complainant as alleged by him. The amount which was received from the complainant, was as per bills which were provided to the complainant. The Ops received Rs.11,86,529/- as per list provided by Goyal Automotive Pvt Ltd., again proper bill. Rs.35,748/- was received towards insurance amount by the insurance company which was done as per request of the complainant. No excess amount of Rs.4500/- was ever received by the OP. No extra registration charges of Rs.5315/- as alleged by the complainant, were received by the OP from the complainant. As per Punjab Motor Vehicle Department Rs.83,522/- were received towards registration of the vehicle in question which is duly prescribed in the bills, so provided to the complainant. No excess rate of accessories was ever received from the complainant as alleged. Rather, Ops No.1 & 2 have returned Rs.3550/- to the complainant through cheque No.009224 as is evident from the statement of account of the Ops Ex.O5, which is also mentioned in the bills. The Ops also submitted reply to the legal notice served by the complainant upon the Ops through their counsel Sh.Jatinder Sharma Advocate dated 3.10.2015 Ex.O7 in which all the details were supplied to the complainant. Thereby, it was explained to the complainant that amount of Rs.4500/- was received as logistic charges, amount of Rs.35,741/- was received towards insurance amount paid to the insurance company and insurance was done as per request of the complainant. No excess charges of registration or insurance or accessories has been charged from the complainant. Rather, the complainant was returned Rs.3550/- which were found excessive as is evident from the statement of account of the OP Ex.O5 and duly received by the complainant. Learned counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 submitted that under these circumstances and facts of this case, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased Hyundai Creta Diesel Car from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 24.7.215 Ex.O2. The complainant alleged that OP No.1 has charged Rs.4500/- under head 'handling charges'. The complainant further submitted that the OP charged Rs.4218/- excess to the prevailing rate of insurance and Rs.5315/- excess for the registration of the vehicle and the OP No.1 has charged Rs.15,000/- for accessories in all the OP No.1 has charged Rs.29,033/- excessively from the complainant. As regards charging of Rs.4500/- under head 'handling charges' by the OP No.1 from the complainant, the OP has submitted that these charges are the logistic charges i.e. charges of factory/industry transportation of the vehicle from the company to the place of sale i.e. at Jalandhar and handling of the vehicle during transportation till the vehicle is handed over to the purchaser. It has been held by Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case W.P.(C) No.8408 of 2011, decided on 20.4.2012 that “if the vehicle dealers are providing any extras in terms of services, goods, fuel, etc. to the purchasers and the purchasers agree to pay therefor, in the absence of any law to control the same, this Court can not issue any direction with respect thereto”.

9. Here in this case, the Ops have provided services to the purchaser and the purchaser agreed to pay therefor because the complainant did not protest when he made the payments of vehicle in question vide bill Ex.O2 in which it has been clearly written handling charges Rs.4500/- and the complainant made the payment of the same to the OP without any protest at that time. So, this Forum can not issue any direction with respect thereto.

10. As regards other points raised by the complainant i.e. OP has charged Rs.4218/- excessive to the prevailing rate of insurance, the OP has produced on record the insurance policy issued by the United India Insurance Company Limited regarding the vehicle in question. The OP has charged Rs.35,748/- from the complainant as per invoice Ex.O1 regarding insurance and this amount has been received by the United India Insurance Company Limited regarding the insurance of the vehicle of the complainant as is evident from the insurance policy Ex.O3. So, no excessive amount has been charged by the OP from the complainant regarding insurance of the vehicle in question. The other point raised by the complainant is that the OP charged Rs.5315/- excessively for the registration charges of the vehicle in question. As per the record, the OP charged Rs.83522/- from the complainant regarding registration of the vehicle in question as is evident from the invoice Ex.O1 and the OP paid Rs.82732/- to the Registering Authority i.e. Punjab Motor Vehicle Department regarding life time road tax and also paid Rs.443/- to the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department as registration fee and for smart card. The OP also paid Rs.377/- to the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department for society scanning fee and smart card (society) regarding which the receipts of the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department is Ex.O4 which fully proves that the OP did not charge any excessive amount from the complainant regarding the registration of the vehicle in question.

11. The OP charged Rs.15,000/- for accessories i.e. for seat covers, mats, mud-flaps, teflon coating etc. from the complainant and the complainant paid this amount to the OP without any protest at the time of purchase of the car in question. Apart from this, the OP has returned Rs.3550/- to the complainant through cheque No.009224 which was not disputed by the complainant. So, all this shows that the OP did not charge any excessive amount from the complainant regarding the vehicle in question. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops qua the complainant.

12. Consequently, we hold that the present 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 cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

06.09.2016 Member President