DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  253

                                                Instituted on:    01.06.2017

                                                Decided on:       28.08.2017

Amandeep Garg son of Sh. Dhani Ram, resident of B-285, Guru Nanak Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

Krishna Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Jind-Delhi Road, Sangrur through its M.D./Proprietor/Partner.

                                                        ..Opposite party

For the complainant  :       Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.

For opposite party    :       Shri Rajender Sharma, Advocate.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Amandeep Garg,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the opposite party runs sale and service centre of Honda two wheelers at Sangrur.  The case of the complainant is that on 9.2.2017, the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting repaired his scooter Activa DLX bearing registration number PB-13-AB-1285 from the OP and the OP issued two bills for Rs.922/- and Rs.80/- respectively on account of parts and repair charges i.e. total for Rs.1002/- on 9.2.2017 and the complainant made the payment through his card, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OP charged Rs.1018/-, whereas the OP was to charge only Rs.1002/- meaning thereby the Op charged an amount of Rs.16/- in excess from the complainant.  As such, the complainant requested the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.16/-, but the OP replied that they have charged an amount of Rs.16/- on account of swap machine charges.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.16/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.40,000/-.

2.             In reply, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary party, that the complainant has no locus stand or cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant got repaired his scooter as mentioned above and the bills for Rs.922/- and Rs.80/-, respectively were issued to the complainant.  It is also admitted that the debit card of the complainant was swapped in the office of the OP for making the payment, but before swapping the card, it was explained to the complainant that if the complainant pays the amount through card, then the bank charges if any will be paid by the complainant and the complainant agreed to that and it has been further stated that an amount of Rs.1000.44 has been deposited in the account of the OP. However, it has been denied that the OP charged an amount of Rs.16/- in excess.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of ATM slip, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 copies of bills and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.Op-2 copy of account statement, Ex.OP-3 copy of POS terminals and closed evidence.

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

5.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting repaired his Honda Activa bearing registration number PB-13-AB-1285 on 9.2.2017 and accordingly the OP issued two bills i.e. one for Rs.922/- and another for Rs.80/- totalling Rs.1002/-, as such the complainant paid the amount of Rs.1002/- through his card, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OP charged an amount of Rs.16/- in excess meaning thereby the Op charged Rs.1018/- from the complainant instead of Rs.1002/-.  On the other hand, the stand of the Op is that the OP charged Rs.16/- on account of swapping charges as the complainant paid the amount of the bill through debit card instead of cash as explained earlier. The learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the OP has received only an amount of Rs.1000.44 instead of Rs.1002/-.  But, we are unable to go with the contention of the OP that the OP did not charge any extra amount from the complainant.  In the circumstances, the fact remains that the OP charged an amount of Rs.16/- in excess as the bills were only for Rs.1002/- and charged the amount of Rs.1018/- from the complainant.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the OP has got no right to charge any extra amount from the complainant than the bill. To support his contention the learned counsel for the complainant has cited M/s. Pioneer Motors versus Amardeep Singh Dharni and another 2015(3) CPJ 111 (NC), wherein it has been held that the repairer charged 2% extra on the bill of service of the vehicle only for reason that the amount was not paid in cash but by debit card. In that case the District Forum allowed the complaint and imposed penalty of Rs.75000/- on the repairer and the appeal was dismissed by the State Commission.  Further the repairer went in appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission, where the compensation was reduced from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.25,000/- only.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP is deficient in service by charging Rs.16/- in excess from the complainant, whereas the bill was only for Rs.1002/- and the OP charged an amount of Rs.1018/-.  In these circumstances, we feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

6.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.16/- and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension agony and harassment. We also direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.         

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 28, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member