3. In the WS, filed on behalf of M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), they have stated that there was no cause of action in favour of the complainant to file the complaint. They have admitted that the complainant got his motorcycle serviced on 30.01.2014. They have asked the complainant to pay as per the bill. They have also stated that OP-1 had used separate mobile oil in lubrication of different parts of vehicle like the clutch lever pivot & sliding surfaces, prop stand pivot & spring hook, drive chain, center stand pivot & spring hook, brake lever pivot and brake pedal pivot. At the time of preparing the bill, the extra amount of oil used in lubrication of the above parts was charged alongwith the price of mobile oil and it was orally informed to the complainant. Other facts have also been denied.
In the WS of M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), they have stated that they appoints/engages dealers and their dealership agreement entered between OP-1 and various dealers on principal to principal basis. They have appointed OP-1 as their dealer and as per Clause 28.1 of Article VII, it has been stated that the dealer was not to sell the products/genuine parts to the customer at a price not exceeding the maximum recommended retail price. The complainant has failed to produce any document on record which can establish the fact that it was upon instructions of OP-2, OP-1 overcharged Rs. 15/- on mobile oil charges against the MRP of Rs. 270/- printed on 1 liter mobile oil bottle. The complainant has been trying to falsely implicate the reputed brand name of OP-2.
They have denied other facts and have stated that the servicing of the motorcycle and changes all parts through genuine spare parts supplied by OP-2 was the exclusive responsibility of the concerned dealer according to the Dealership Agreement. They have denied that complainant objected and enquired from OP-1 the reason or explanation for overcharging Rs. 15/- on mobile oil charges MRP of Rs. 270/-. They have denied that OP-1 informed the complainant that they charged Rs. 285/- on the instructions of their principal i.e. OP-2. They have submitted that there was no principal agent relationship between OP-1 and OP-2 instead it is a pure contractual understanding wherein the authorized dealer has to abide by the terms of agreement. Thus, they have denied their liability.
4. The complainant in his rejoinder to the Written Statement of M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Ltd. (OP-2) has controverted the pleas made in their written statements and have reasserted his pleas made in the complaint.
5. In support of its complaint, complainant Amit Kishore Jain have examined himself. He has deposed on affidavit and has narrated the facts/contents of the complaint. He has also made reference to the documents such as copy of invoice (Annex. C-1), business card of M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Annex. C-2), copy of invoice/job card slip (Annex. C-3 & C-4), copy of mobile oil bottle slip (Annex. C-5 & 6) and copy of emails sent to the company (Annex. C-7).
M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) has examined Shri Manish Agarwal, Director, who have deposed on affidavit. He has stated in his affidavit that OP-1 had used separate mobile oil and lubrication of different parts of vehicle like the clutch lever pivot & sliding surfaces, prop stand pivot & spring hook, drive chain, center stand pivot & spring hook, brake lever pivot and brake pedal pivot. He has further deposed that at the time of preparing the bill, the extra amount of oil used in lubrication of these parts was charged alongwith the price of mobile oil and it was informed to the complainant. He has also stated that the complainant threatened M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) that he was a RTI activist and will drag OP in false and frivolous cases. They have never charged from his customers in any manner as has been falsely alleged by the complainant. They charged the price of oil which was used in service of the vehicle and the same has been prior information to the customers. He has also stated that the complainant has put his signatures on the job card after his satisfaction when the vehicle was handed over to him. He has also got exhibited the documents such as periodic maintenance chart (Ex. OP1/1) and job card (Ex.OP1/2).
M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Ltd. (OP-2) has examined Shri Arun Sharma, AR of the company, who has deposed on affidavit. He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS. He has also made reference to documents such as Board Resolution (Annex. 1), dealership agreement (Annex. 2). He has also deposed that the complainant have failed to produce any document on record which can establish the fact that it was upon instructions of OP-2, OP-1 overcharged Rs. 15/- on mobile oil against the MRP of Rs. 270/- printed on one liter mobile oil bottle.
6. We have heard the complainant and the Ld. Counsel for M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and have perused the material placed on record.
It has been argued on behalf of M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) that they have not charged excess amount than the MRP, but they have charged the amount for lubricating the parts while servicing the motorcycle of the complainant. They have further stated that the complainant has put his signatures on the bill and he was estopped from raising the plea later on.
On the other hand, complainant have argued that the excess amount charged by M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) was over and above the MRP of the lubricant oil which was printed on the one liter bottle. He has further argued that he put his signatures on the bill in order to get the vehicle released.
He has also placed reliance on Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., CC No. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 07.10.2016, Big Cinemas & Anr. vs. Manoj Kumar, Revision Petition No. 2038 of 2015, decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 01.02.2016 and D.K. Chopra vs. Snack Bar, Revision Petition No. 4090 of 2012, decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 04.03.2014.
To appreciate the arguments of complainant and Ld. Counsel for M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), a look has to be made to the testimony of the complainant Amit Kishore Jain, Manish Agarwal, Director of M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Shri Arun sharma, AR of Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2).
Firstly, from the testimony of the complainant, it has to be seen as to whether M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Ltd. (OP-2) are connected in any way in directing M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) to sell the lubricant oil on the excess price than the MRP. If the testimony of complainant Amit Kishore Jain is perused, he has stated in his testimony that when he objected and enquired from M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) for overcharging Rs. 15/- on mobile oil, OP-1 informed him that they charged Rs. 285/- on the instructions of their principal i.e. M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Ltd. (OP-2). This fact has been denied by Shri Arun Sharma, AR of M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Ltd. (OP-2) stating that complainant have failed to produce any document on record to show that M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) was instructed by M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Ltd. (OP-2). Though, complainant Amit Kishore Jain have stated that he was informed by M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) that they have charged Rs. 285/- on the instructions of their principal i.e. M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Ltd. (OP-2), to prove this fact, complainant have failed to put anything on record. This is a mere allegation without any proof and in the absence of that mere allegation cannot be said to be proved. When M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Ltd. (OP-2) have printed MRP on the article, they cannot give any direction to their dealers to overcharge. Despite that, if they overcharge, the liability cannot be fastened on the principal unless and until there has been concrete evidence to connect them. The fact that there is nothing on record to substantiate the fact of overcharging by M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) on the instructions of M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Ltd. (OP-2), no liability can be fastened on M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Ltd. (OP-2), therefore, the complaint against M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Ltd. (OP-2) goes.
Coming to the liability, if any, of M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), again the testimony of complainant Amit Kishore Jain and Mr. Manish Agarwal, Director of OP-1 have to be examined.
In the testimony of complainant Amit Kishore Jain, he has stated that when he checked the invoice carefully, he found that M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) overcharged Rs. 15/- i.e. more than MRP printed on one liter mobile oil bottle.
Mr. Manish Agarwal, Director of OP-1 have stated in his testimony that they had used separate mobile oil in lubrication of different parts of vehicle like the clutch lever pivot & sliding surfaces, prop stand pivot & spring hook, drive chain, center stand pivot & spring hook, brake lever pivot and brake pedal pivot.
He has further deposed that while preparing the bill, the extra amount of oil used in lubrication of these parts was charged alongwith the price of mobile oil, which was informed to the complainant.
From the testimony of complainant, it is admitted fact that an amount of Rs. 15/- have been overcharged than the printed MRP of Rs. 270/- on one liter mobile oil bottle.
Now, it has to be seen as to how far the testimony of Mr. Manish Agarwal, Director of OP-1 justifies this amount. If a look is made to invoice of M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Annex. C-3), it has been noticed that under the head Oil/Lubricants, an amount of Rs. 237.49 have been charged for one liter mobile oil bottle. On this Rs. 237.49, VAT @ 20% has been charged which comes to Rs. 47.50. Though the total amount for lubricant oil comes to Rs. 285/- which was more than Rs. 270/- printed as MRP on the bottle, but fact remains that M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. have charged Rs. 237.49 which was less than MRP of Rs. 270/-. They have given the explanation that they have used lubricant oil for servicing the spare parts of the motorcycle such as clutch lever pivot & sliding surfaces, prop stand pivot & spring hook, drive chain, center stand pivot & spring hook, brake lever pivot and brake pedal pivot, their explanation seems to be plausible as while servicing the vehicle, the company have to use lubricant for cleaning the parts.
Not only that, even the complainant have put his signatures on this bill while accepting the same. By paying the amount, the complainant cannot later on raise an objection that he has been overcharged. He was estopped under the Principal of Estoppel. Even otherwise also, the VAT @ 20% on Rs. 237.49 amounting to Rs. 47.50 have not been retained by the company and it has gone to the government department. The company have only taken an amount of Rs. 237.49 which was less than the MRP of Rs. 270/-.
Now, it has to be seen as to how far the judgements relied upon by the complainant help him. The first judgement relied upon by the complainant in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. (supra) does not come to his rescue as complainant’s complaint is not a class action. Thus, the same is not attracted to the facts of the case.
The second judgement in Big Cinemas & Anr. (supra), is not attracted to the facts of the case as in Big Cinemas & Anr. (supra), the question was of two kinds of MRPs, one for the ordinary people and the other for cinema halls.
The third judgement of D.K. Chopra (supra) is also not attracted to the facts of the case as in D.K. Chopra’s case; the Snack Bar of the respondent was at the Chennai Airport where double amount was charged than MRP. In the complainant’s case, the excess amount overcharged than the MRP, as alleged by the complainant have not been pocketed by M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), but it has gone to the government department on account of VAT (Value Added Tax).
Thus, the judgements relied upon by the complainant are not attracted to the facts of the case and do not come to his rescue. Therefore, there is no force in the arguments of the complainant. Hence, no liability can be fastened on M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1).
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant have failed to prove any deficiency on the part of M/s. M.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and M/s. Suzuki Motorcycle India Ltd. (OP-2). Therefore, his complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (SUKHDEV SINGH)
Member President
