DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.09 of 2014

       Dr. Tauseef Ahmad, aged about 68 yrs.,

       S/o Late Sri S.A. Rahman,

        R/o 11, Krishna Colony, Mahanagar,

        Lucknow.

                                                                   ……Complainant

Versus

                 1. Honda Cars, Stallion Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd.,

                    A-16, Indira Nagar, Faizabad Road,

                     Lucknow. 

                2. Honda Cars India Ltd.,

                    Plot No.A-1, Sector 40/41,

                    Surajpur- Kasna Road,

                    Greater Noida Industrial Development Area,

                    Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. 201306.

                3. Honda Cars India Ltd., Technical Support Centre,

                    Old No.26/New No.46, Opp. ICICI Bank,

                    Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur,

                    Chennai-600058.

                                                                              .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of difference of amount of cost of Rs.26,040.00, difference of registration amount of Rs.5,063, amount of extended warranty of Rs.5,650.00, logistic charges of Rs.5,600.00, compensation of Rs.15,000.00 and cost of the litigation of Rs.15,000.00.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that the Complainant approached OP No.1 for purchasing Honda Brio car. The OP No.1 assured the Complainant that under the

-2-

prevailing scheme of OP No.1, OP No.1shall bear the insurance charges and also shall get the vehicle registered in the name of Complainant and actual registration charges shall be charged from the Complainant and OP No.1 will not charge any amount as service charge. On the aforesaid assurance of OP No.1 the Complainant purchased a Honda Brio car on 09.08.2013. The Complainant paid the amount of Rs.5,17,690.00 through online bank transfer and the OP No.1 gave receipt of the same. The receipt discloses Rs.4,68,000.00 price of the car, RTO and registration charges Rs.40,440.00 and other charges as Rs.11,250.00. After the payment of the above price, vehicle was delivered by OP No.1. The Complainant demanded for a complete break-up of the paid amount against his car to which the OP No.1 suggested that whenever the Complainant comes to collect the registration certificate of the car the OP No.1 shall provide the same. When the Complainant reached the showroom of OP No.1 to collect the registration certificate and demanded the complete break-up of the amount paid, the OP No.1 handed over the registration certificate on which amount shown was Rs.35,357.00 where as the Complainant was charged Rs.40,440.00 for RTO which means that Rs.5,083.00 was charged in excess. The OP No.1 gave rough detail of the amount which discloses that price of the car as per invoice of the Co. was Rs.4,41,960.00 and Rs.35,357.00 were registration charges and Rs.5,600.00 for extended warranty. The extended warranty, road side assistance and insurance was free under the scheme whereas the Complainant was charged for the extended warranty. The ex-showroom price of the car was inclusive of the logistic charges whereas the OP No.1 has charged the same from the Complainant in the other head which means that the Complainant had paid the logistic charges twice. The Complainant asked the OP No.1to refund the aforesaid amount which was taken in excess but the OP

-3-

No.1 did not refund the money. The Complainant also sent a legal notice through registered post on 08.10.2013 which was served upon him but the OP No.1 did not refund the money. The aforesaid act of OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

          Notices were issued to the OPs but none appeared, hence the case proceeded exparte against OPs vide orders passed on 19.08.2014.

          The Complainant has filed his affidavit with paper No.6 to 12 and 4 annexures with the complaint.

          Heard Counsel for the Complainant and perused the entire record.

          In this case, the Complainant had purchased a car Honda Brio from the OP No.1. The OP No.1 had received Rs.5,17,690.00. He was provided with a retail sheet whereby the price of the car was shown to be Rs.4,68,000.00. The RTO charges were Rs.40,440.00 and Rs.11,250.00 were to be charged for logistic and extended warranty and insurance amount of Rs.12,970.00 plus corporate discount of Rs.2,000.00 and two years extended warranty was to be given under the scheme and thus out of the total amount of Rs.5,19,690.00, Rs.5,17,690.00 was to be paid which was duly paid by the Complainant but when he was given the receipt, then he found that the price of the car was Rs.4,41,960.00 and the registration amount as shown in the RC was Rs.35,357.00 and logistic charges of Rs.56,560.00 and the amount of extended warranty which was to be given under the scheme, was in fact charged by the OP and thus the OP charged Rs.42,353.00 in excess of what was payable by the Complainant and for which the receipt was given by the OP. The Complainant has in this regard filed a photocopy of the retail sheet of the offer given to the Complainant which shows that the price of the car was Rs.4,68,000.00 and the charges of the RTO was Rs.40,440.00 the insurance was to be provided

-4-

free of cost and that Rs.11,250.00 were chargeable on account of logistic and extended warranty and that Rs.2,000.00 was to be given as corporate discount and extended warranty also was to be given under the scheme and thus out of total sum of Rs.5,19,690.00 the Complainant was to pay Rs.5,17,690.00 after the corporate discount of Rs.2,000.00 which was duly paid by the Complainant as is evident from that sheet itself where the amount appears to have been transferred through RTGS from the bank. But the Complainant has filed a copy of the receipt for the cost of the vehicle which shows the cost of the vehicle to be Rs.4,41,960.00 which was in fact the cost of the vehicle. But the amount charged was Rs.4,68,000.00 as cost of the vehicle, therefore obviously Rs.4,68,000.00-Rs.4,41,960 = Rs.26,040.00 was excess charged from the Complainant. With regard to the registration of the vehicle Rs.40,440.00 was charged whereas the RC copy of which has been filed as annexure No.2 shows the amount for the registration as Rs.35,357.00 i.e. Rs.40,440.00-Rs.35,357.00= Rs.5,083.00 was excess charges for the registration. Besides excess warranty was given under the scheme as is evident from the aforesaid retail sheet but he was charged Rs.5,650.00 for the same whereas the OPs should not have charged for extended warranty when it is provided to the Complainant under the scheme. The case of the Complainant is that he was charged for the logistic of Rs.5,600.00 whereas under the scheme the OPs should not have charged this but there is no evidence to show that this logistic charge of Rs.5,650.00 was not chargeable under the scheme because the retail sheet does not make mention of the waiver of the logistic charges under the scheme. The Complainant has filed his affidavit in support of his complaint wherein he has supported the entire version of the complaint on oath. The OPs have not filed any reply nor any counter affidavit to rebut the contention of the Complainant made on oath, therefore there is no reason to

-5-

disbelief the unchallenged testimony of the Complainant. From the affidavit and the documents filed by the Complainant, it is clear that the excess amount was charged by the OPs so far as the price of the car, registration of the vehicle and extended warranty were concerned but there is no evidence to show that the logistic charge was also to be provided to the Complainant free of cost under the scheme, therefore this amount cannot said to be unjustifiably charged by the OPs whereas the excess amount of Rs.26,040.00 on account of the price of the car, a sum of Rs.5,083.00 on account of the registration charges and Rs.5,650.00 for extended warranty were charged in excess of what was to be charged by the OPs. Therefore, it is clear that the OP has charged Rs.42,353.00 in excess of what the Complainant was required to pay which is clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The Complainant therefore is entitled to get the refund of Rs.42,423.00 with interest. Since the Complainant appears to have been harassed in this regard, hence he is entitled to compensation as also cost of the litigation.

          It is seen quite often that the car dealers charge the amount but give the receipt which is much less than what was charged by them. It is obligatory for the dealers to give exact receipts for the amount charge by them. They should immediately stop the practice of giving receipts for a lesser amount than what they charge.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.42,423.00 (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Three Only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the Complainant.

-6-

          The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month

    (Rajarshi Shukla)          (Anju Awasthy)                (Vijai Varma)

          Member                       Member                      President    

Dated:    4 April, 2015