BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          Complaint No:  209 of 15.03.2016.                                                            Date of Decision: 28.10.2016.

Paramdeep Singh S/o. S. Satinder Pal Singh, resident of House No.199, Vania-Ka Street, Faridkot-151203.

..… Complainant

                                                Versus

Laxmi Service Station, Opp. Milk Plant, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Office Manager/Authorized Signatory/Incharge.

…..Opposite parties 

                                      Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         In person.

For OP                           :         Sh. Sunil Tiwari, Advocate.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by complainant by pleading that he got pollution checked for Maruti Swift car No.PB-04Q-1738 from OP on 09.03.2016 by paying Rs.50/- vide receipt No.39620 dated 09.03.2016. Punjab Government approved rate for said checking is Rs.20/- and as such, by claiming that Rs.30/- charged in excess than the approved government rates, OP committed act of unfair trade practice. Pollution control Certificate No.5306 on 09.03.2016 at 04.43.18 PM was issued by OP regarding above said vehicle. Despite asking by complainant, list of Government approved rates for checking not issued by the person of PUC centre of OP. However, complainant collected information that rates approved by Punjab Government for pollution checking is Rs.20/-.

2.                In written statement filed by OP, it is pleaded, interalia, as if complaint not maintainable; complaint bad due to nonjoinder of necessary parties. Besides it is claimed that OP is charging Rs.20/- for pollution checkup and no receipt is issued. It is claimed that perusal of receipt produced by complainant will show that it is not for pollution checkup, but is receipt for petrol, brake oil etc. It is claimed that complainant has forged and fabricated the receipt in question. OP has also installed a board on which price for pollutioncheck up has been categorically mentioned. Photograph of the same alleged to be produced with written statement. Allegation of car pollution checking on 09.03.2016 denied and even allegation of charging Rs.50/- denied. Non issue of the receipt for pollution checkup etc. is a common practice adopted by all the service stations. Each and every other allegation of complaint denied.

3.                Complainant to prove his case, tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3, Annexure-C4/1 to Annexure-C4/4. Annexure-C5/1. Anneuxre-C5/2, Annexure-C6, Annexure-C7/1, Annexure-C7/2 and thereafter closed evidence.

4.                On the other hand, Sh. Ashok Sachdeva, Partner of OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA along with documents Ex. R1 and then closed evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and record gone through carefully.

6.                Complainant got information under Right to Information Act to the effect that Transport Department of Punjab Government vide notification dated 28.01.2002 has made provision for charging of Rs.20/- for issuance of pollution check certificate. Annexure-C3 reflects that thing. Even during course of arguments, complainant produced another reply obtained on 29.04.2016 from State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, which also reflects the same thing. So it is obvious that government approved rate for pollution check is Rs.20/-. However, cash memo Annexure-C1 shows that complainant got pollution checkup of his vehicle bearing No.PB-04Q-1738 conducted on 09.03.2016 by paying Rs.50/-. Copy of the pollution certificate is produced on record as Anneuxre-C2. If signatures of a person on Anneuxre-C1 differs from the signature of a person putting signature on Annexure-C2, then it may be due to issue of receipt by different person, but issue of certificate of pollution by different person. So benefit from this fact cannot be gained by counsel for OP in so far as he claims that receipt Annexure-C1 or certificate Annexure-C2 are fictitious. More so OP themselves have produced on record photostat copy of Annexure-R1 to establish as if pollution checking charges is Rs.30/-. However, government approved rate as per Anneuxre-C3 is Rs.20/- and as such, virtually OP themselves have displayed excessive rate on the board put up by them in the premises of petrol pump. Annexure-C4/1 to Annexure-C4/4 further establishes that Rs.50/- is charged for pollutiion check from others also by OP concern.

7.                As OP themselves have taken plea that receipt for charging pollution check fee is not issued and as such, same itself is an unfair trade practice because as and when function of a governmental agency of pollution checking of vehicles to be performed, then the same must be by issue of a certificate and separate receipt. So the plea taken in the written statement by OP along with produced document Ex. R1 fortifies the claim of complainant that OP charging excess amount than that of the prescribed governmental fee. Claim of complainant as such is fully believable that OP had been charging Rs.50/- as pollution checking fee instead of approved governmental fee of Rs.20/-.

8.                It is contended by counsel for Op that notice of alleged excess charging not served on owner and as such, complaint is not maintainable. Issue of notice is not essential because as and when employees at a petrol pump act for charging pollution checking fee, then they act on behalf of the principal. Liability of principal to remain qua the acts of unfair trade practice committed by the employees in course of business transaction. So service of notice on owner of OP was not at all essential. OP failed to prove as to how the  cash memos Annexure-C1 and other documents produced by complainant are on the letter head of OP. So allegations of forgery of Annexure-C1 virtually are leveled just for escaping liability. If the OP concern is a concern of repute, then same does not give it a licence to charge excessive fee for pollution checking than that of government prescribed one. The evidence produced on record establishes excess charging of amount of Rs.30/- from complainant and as such, complainant entitled for reimbursement of the same. Complainant dared to expose the design of OP in charging Rs.50/- per head for pollution checking and that is why he is able to prove document Annexure-C1, Annexure-C4/1 to Annexure-C4/4 etc. and as such, complainant deserves to be compensated for mental harassment and also for litigation expenses, but to suitable limit, so that there may not be unnecessary and unjust enrichment of complainant.

9.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP directed to refund excess charged amount of Rs.30/- to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Further OP directed to pay compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                       (Vinod Bala)                   (G.K. Dhir)

                                       Member                           President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:28.10.2016.

Gobind Ram.