Haryana

Kurukshetra

82/2018

Joginder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishna Sales - Opp.Party(s)

Sunita Rani

24 Sep 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.82 of 2018.

 Date of instt.: 13.04.2018.

                                                                         Date of Decision: 24.09.2018.

Joginder Singh son of Shri Jaba Ram, resident of Village Lohar Majra, Post Office Kamoda, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

Krishna Sales Authorized Service Centre for Bajaj Auto Limited, Radaur Road, Opposite Power House, Ladwa (Kurukshetra).

 

..………OP.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

                                                                                               

Before            Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                        Ms. Neelam, Member.

                        Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

 

 Present :      Ms. Sunita Rani, Advocate for complainant.

                       OP already exparte.

                                         

ORDER

 

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, moved by complainant Joginder Singh against Krishna Sales, opposite party.

2.             Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one Brand New Bajaj CT-100 (SPOKE) bearing chassis No.MD2A18AZII-IPK06521 and engine No.DUZPHK-08206 against the consideration of Rs.34,590/-.  It is alleged that after receiving the amount of Rs.34,590/-, the Op issued the invoice of the said vehicle to the tune of Rs.33,500/- and as such, the Op has charged Rs.1090/- more than the actual price of the vehicle.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Op to pay the said amount of Rs.1090/- illegally charged by him but the Op did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  It is further alleged that despite issuance of legal notice dt. 20.03.2016, the Op did not do needful.  This way, the Op is deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint seeking direction to Op to return the amount of Rs.1090/- charged in excess from the complainant and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

2.             Upon notice, the Op did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 21.05.2018.

3.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, copy of delivery note as Ex.C1, copy of temporary certificate of registration as Ex.C2, copy of form-22 as Ex.C3, copy of sale certificate as Ex.C4, copy of invoice as Ex.C5, copy of receipt, Ex.C6, copy of postal receipt, Ex.C7 and legal notice, Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.    

4.             We have heard the ld. counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the grievance of the complainant is with regard to the amount of Rs.1090/-.  The contention of complainant is that he purchased the vehicle in question from the Op and the Op received the amount of Rs.34,590/- from the complainant, whereas the Op issued the invoice of Rs.33,500/-, so, the Op charged Rs.1090/- in excess from the complainant.  We have perused the delivery note/challan, Ex.C1 dt. 31.03.2017, wherein in the column of cash, the amount of Rs.34,590/- has clearly been mentioned, whereas in the invoice, the amount of Rs.33,500/- has been mentioned.  To prove his case, the complainant has testified all the facts in the affidavit, Ex.CW1/A so set out by him in the complaint.  Besides the said affidavit, the complainant has also tendered into evidence Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.  Whereas, on the other hand, the Op was proceeded against exparte.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the Op has charged the excess amount of Rs.1,090/- from the complainant and thus, the Op has adopted the act of unfair trade practice and is deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

6.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to pay Rs.1,090/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the cost of litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its payment.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.24.09.2018.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Tirkha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.