Sri. Apurba Kr. Ghosh............President.

The Complainant has filed this case against the OPs and prays for the following orders/reliefs:-

1. Direction against the OP No. 1 to refund a sum of Rs. 14,492/- to the complainant which was paid by him.
2. Direction against the OP No. 1 to refund the amount of Rs. 18,894/- if OP No. 1 cannot clarify the entry of the said amount in their ledger (Annexure VI) which was recovered from the complainant as insurance charges which was free.
3. Direction against the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment.
4. Cost of legal proceedings. 

BRIEF FACT OF THE COMPLAINT

1. The Complainant has purchased a car being Chassis No. MALA851CLFM349273, Engine No. G4LAFM818479 on 18.12.2015 from the OP No. 1 and thereafter he founds that, the OP No. 1 has recovered excess amount from him and there was difference between the actual amount paid and amount of which receipts were handed over to him by the OP No. 1
2. That, the complainant on 30.08.2016 made a complaint to the OP No. 1 with a copy forwarded to the Hyundai Customer Care in India by email that their quotation for the same shows the total amount of Rs. 6,22,818/- and the said amount was paid by the complainant to the OP No. 1 but the aggregated amount of the invoice (Annexure 2) provided by the OP No. 1 along with other receipts (Annexure 3 and 4) like fees for registration etc. was of Rs. 6,07,766/-and there was an excess payment of Rs. 15,052/- which was recovered from the complainant but no receipt was given to him.
3. That the customer care of Hyundai India Ltd. Acknowledged the email (Annexure IX) on 31.08.2016 with a promise of advising their Regional Office to coordinate with the dealer for necessary action to that effect.
4. That Ms. Paromita Chettri, Customer Care Manager, Kaushal Hyundai   replied on 01.09.2016 requesting the complainant to go to the Showroom and the complainant got a phone  call from the OP No. 1 and had a brief discussion over phone regarding that matter and the complainant was told that details of the payment receipts by them will be sent by email to him with sufficient clarification and breakup and on 01.09.2016 the complainant received an email from Goutam Mondal of OP No. 1 with a page of ledger (Annexure 6) as attachment and after going through  the same he found that as per ledger, the OP No. 1 recovered a sum of Rs. 18,894/- as cost of insurance which had to be free of cost as per the quotation.
5. That the OP No. 1 did not returned the said sum of money which he recovered from him and the ledger of the OP No. 1 shows that, they recovered a sum of Rs. 38,039/- for registration of the vehicle but they provided him a road tax challan of Rs. 30,206/- and another receipt of new registration fees etc. of Rs. 440/- and thereby excess amount of Rs. 38,039- Rs.30,206- Rs.440=Rs. 7,392/- and the ledger shows that they recovered from him Rs. 4,000/- as handling charges but they did not provide any receipt and as per the offer shown in the booking form free accessories of Rs. 10,000/- was converted to cash discount of Rs. 10,000/- which was not recorded in the ledger and thereby the excess recovery of amount goes to Rs. 18,894/- + Rs. 7,392/- +Rs. 4,000/- = Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 40,286/- as per their ledger and he replied the OP No. 1 with request to refund the excess amount of Rs. 40,286/- through email dated 03.09.2016 (Annexure VI).
6. That, one Goutam Mondal of OP No. 1 replied via email on 04.09.2016, (Annexure XI) that the free insurance amount which the complainant claims as an excess recovery of Rs. 18894/- was already added in the car tax invoice of the complainant but the ledger shows that, they had received from the complainant Rs. 38039/- as registration but they could provide receipt for an amount of Rs. 30646/- + Rs. 560/- for number plate i.e Rs. 31,206/- and they also get the complainant an amount of Rs. 3,415/- as refund and then difference of amount was of Rs. 3,977/- which was taken as brokerage charge for providing registration paper.
7. The complainant has further stated that, as per quotation, the ex-showroom price will be chargeable of Rs. 5,77,365/- but the complainant gave the OP No. 1 car tax invoice of Rs. 5,48,470/- i.e difference was Rs. 18,895/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 28,895/- and cash discount of accessories was of Rs. 10,000/-.  
8. The complainant has further stated that, he replied on 07.09.2016 (Annexure XII) where the OP No. 1 claim that the free insurance amount was already added in the car tax invoice and ex-showroom price does not include insurance charges as per the quotation and neither the invoice shows that the cash discount meant for insurance amount and the OP No. 1 never informed the complainant for such deviation from quotation price. It is also stated that, ex-showroom price which the OP No. 1 quoted was inclusive of VAT and that amount of VAT of Rs. 73,116/- but they paid Rs. 69456.90/- as VAT and the same was of Rs. 3,659/- less than actual VAT as per quotation. It is further stated that, the OP No. 1 wrote that, an amount of Rs. 3415/- was refunded to him but that amount was not refunded as excess amount taken by the OP No. 1 for registration but the said amount was refunded because as per offer 3^rd year extended warranty was free but it was quoted as chargeable in the quotation and the sum Rs. 3415/- was refunded by cheque no. 093133 of ICICI bank dated 03.02.2016 when the said warranty was found free of cost.
9. The complainant has further stated that, the OP No. 1 wrote that, a sum of Rs. 3977/- was taken as brokerage charge for providing registration paper from West Bengal Motor Vehicle Department and the OP No. 1 did not say the name of the person to whom the  amount was paid and no handling charge of Rs. 4,000/- was mentioned and no receipt was issued in favour of the complainant and from the ledger and agreement, it was clear that the OP No. 1 recovered excess amount and that’s why they did not issue any receipts and towards registration there was excess amount which was recovered from the complainant was of Rs. 6,833/- along with handling charges of Rs. 4,000/-, excess VAT amount of Rs. 3,659/- and that’s why the complainant requested the OP No. 1 to refund him Rs. 14,492/- (Rs. 6,859/- + Rs. 4,000/-+ Rs. 3,659/-).
10. That subsequently, the OP No. 1 insisted the complainant over phone to go to their showroom and on 07.09.2016 the OP No. 1 informed him that, their sales person Miss Manjushri would visit the place of the complainant as soon as possible for more clarification and break ups and finally on 10.09.2016 Miss Manjushri along with one male sales person went to the house of the complainant and they discussed the matter citing all documents and they were satisfied and admitted that, there was discrepancy between the amount recovered for the purchase and the amount shown in the receipts and they returned from his house assuring the complainant to resolve the matter.
11. That on 12.09.2016, Promita Chetri Customer Care Manager, sent an email informed that, the sales person visited house of the complainant where the complainant stated that he was no clear about the payment details and for more clarification the complainant was again called in the office of the OP No. 1 so they can solve the matter as early as possible and  the complainant replied by email on 13.09.2016 (Annexure XIII) stating that, he did not tell the sales persons that the payment details were not clear to him rather he told him that, it was clear to him that excess payment was recovered from him. The complainant has further stated that, the OP No. 1 had provided receipt of Rs. 31206/- through the fee was of Rs. 560/- for number plate and there was excess payment recovered was of Rs. 38039/- - Rs. 31206/- = Rs. 6833/- and they claims as if Rs. 3415/- was refunded to the complainant as the excess recovery in connection with registration charges though it was known to the complainant that the said sum of money was refunded as 3^rd year extended warranty was free but it was charged earlier and Rs. 3418/- for excess recovery in connection with registration i.e totaling of Rs. 6833/- and excess VAT was recovered from the complainant but was not paid to the Government of Rs. 3659/- and handling charge of Rs. 4000/- , so there was excess recovery of Rs. 14492/-(Rs. 6859/- + Rs. 4000/- + Rs. 3659/-). The complainant has further stated that, he emailed the matter on 07.09.2016 to the OPs but they make no reply to that email and on discussion with him he was again asked to come to the office of the OP No. 1 to discuss the matter and such intention was nothing but to harass the complainant.
12. That, when the OP No. 1 did not make any reply to the email the complainant sent reminder email on 18.09.2016 which was acknowledged by the OP No. 1 on 19.09.2016 but they make no reply. Again they insisted the complainant to go to their showroom and again sent an email on 22.09.2016 (Annexure XIV).
13. That, regarding registration of the vehicle the OP No. 1 provided receipts of Rs. 31206/- and excess payment recovered of Rs. 38039/- -Rs. 31206/- = Rs. 6833/- along with handling charges of Rs. 4000/- and excess VAT of Rs. 3659/- so the total claim of Rs. 14,492/- (Rs. 6859/-+ Rs. 4000/- + Rs. 3659/-) and the OP No. 1 sent an email on 19.09.2016 and sent a distorted copy of receipt of handling charges of Rs. 4000/- which was not provided after over 9 month from the date of purchase. 
14. That on several occasions the OP no. 1 insisted the complainant to go to their showroom and the complainant replied that he will go to the showroom on 24.09.2016 and he asked the OP No. 1 to provide him reply to all demands / claims / clarification duly signed by the appropriate authority and on that day the complainant went to the showroom of the OP No. 1 and met with Goutam Mondal along with two other persons and they failed to answer why the aggregated amount of all the receipts they provided could not be matched with the amount recovered from him for the purchase of vehicle and they promised the complainant to give early reply through email but  they never responded till date.
15. That again on 26.09.2016 the complainant sent email to the OP No. 1 and copy forwarded to the Customer Care of Hyundai where he disclosed that he visited the showroom of the OP No. 1 on 24.09.2016 and attended Mr. Goutam from account section and other persons, he went there accompanied with his wife but they did not make any reply to the claim of the complainant and they did not handover any hardcopy containing reply of the demands / claims / clarifications which was sought and they told that they will sent reply to the email but make no reply and the complainant tried to contact with the OP No. 1 as well as customer care of Hyundai but they had been ignoring and humiliating the complainant though the OP No. 1 had recovered excess amount of Rs. 14492/- from him in addition, an amount of Rs. 18894/- (as per their ledger) was recovered from him or insurance which was free (they did not clarify the same satisfactorily).
16. That the OPs are responsible for mental and physical harassment, financial loss and loss of physical health and loss of mental peace of the complainant.

In order to prove the case the complainant has annexed the following documents:-

1.  Calculation Sheet- Discrepancy between payment made by the complainant and receipt issued by the OP No. 1 – Annexure I.
2. Copy of invoice of the car purchase Annexure II.
3. Copy of Receipt of the registration fees (Annexure III).
4. Other fees for registration (Annexure IV) n
5. Copy of quotation (Annexure V).
6. Copy of ledger of OP No. 1 ( Annexure VI)
7. Copy of booking form (Annexure VII).
8. Copy of free 3^rd year warranty certificate (Annexure VIII).
9. Print out of first complain to OP No. 1 by email dated 30.08.2016  (Annexure IX).
10. Printout of email dated 03.09.2016 (Annexure X).
11. Printout of email dated 04.09.2016 (Annexure XI).
12. Printout of email dated 07.09.2016 (Annexure XII).
13. Printout of email dated 13.09.2016 (Annexure XIII).
14. Printout of email dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure XIV).
15. Printout of email dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure XV).

Notice was issued from this commission upon the OPs which had duly served upon them and on receipt on notice the OP No. 1 and 2 have appeared through Vokalatnama, filed written version and denied all the material allegation of the complainant. In the written version the OP No. 1 have stated that the complaint is not maintainable both in law and facts against the OPs/ the case is barred by law of estoppels and waiver/ the complaint is not maintainable for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties/ the complainant has claimed relief against the OPs which is beyond the scope of the Consumer Protection Act/ the complainant cannot be construed as a consumer disputes as per the provisions of the CP Act / the complainant has filed this case against the OPs with an intention to harass them and to derive undue advantage as well as unlawful gain from the OPs. In the W/V the OP No. 1 has stated that, the complainant went to its showroom intends to purchase a Hyundai car for his personal use and on his request a quotation being no. 958 dated 15.12.2015 for the sum of Rs. 6,22,818/- was given payable in advance or at the time of taking delivery and in the said quotation, the terms and condition are printed as i) the price valid at the time of delivery will be applicable, ii) the price and the specification are subject to be change without notice. The OP No. 1 has further stated that, the purchaser had to pay Rs. 6,22,818/- and being agreed to pay by the complainant, he booked on 15.12.2015 on payment of advance booking amount of Rs. 5000/- for grand item ASTA 1.2 G Orange and the complainant had his old car which he surrender the same to the OP No. 1 for the sum of Rs. 75000/- which amount was adjusted against the sale price and the complainant did not issue any money receipt for the said sum of Rs. 75000/-. It is also stated by the OP No. 1 that a retail sales order booking form being no. 596/- dated 15.12.2015 was also prepared for RS. 6,41,713/- and the complainant had accepted the said booking order by putting his signature and the said order form total amount was payable by the complainant / purchaser of Rs. 6,41,713/- including insurance charges of Rs. 18895/- as shown therein and if the insurance is free then the purchaser had to pay a sum of Rs. 6,41,713/- - Rs. 18895/- (insurance charges) = Rs. 6,22,818/- as mentioned in the quotation being no. 958 dated 15.12.2015 and both the quotation and order form had been accepted by the complainant on 15.12.2015. The OP No. 1 has further stated that, total price as accepted by the complainant was payable Rs. 6,22,818/- and the complainant in his complaint has intentionally avoided to narrate the said facts for his personal and illegal gain and it is not disclosed that the OP No. 1 took from him more than Rs. 6,22,818/- agreed and accepted price on 15.12.2018. It is further stated in the W/V that,  on sale of goods VAT is payable as per rate prescribe by the Government and sale of car by a dealer the seller had to pay 14.5% VAT on Sell price as applicable on bill amount and there was no VAT prior to 01.07.2017, date of introduction of GST on registration charges, insurance charges, handling charge, cash discount but if the same are mentioned in the bill or cash memo then VAT was payable on said charges so charges are not mentioned in the bill or cash memo in the interest of a customer because VAT is payable by the purchaser of goods but separately, verbally or in quotation the said fact is intimated to the intending purchaser and the same  is in this case also and the registration and insurance may be done by a purchaser but a purchaser does not like to take burden and thus he saves time, energy and money and it is clear to the customer that some extra amount is leviable on registration charges for which no money receipts is issued. The OP No. 1 in its written version had further stated that, the complainant has paid 6,12,818/- adjusting old car valued of Rs. 75000/- and discount amount of Rs. 25,000/- i.e 512818/- instead of quotation and order booking amount Rs. 622818/- and the complainant has not paid more than quotation and order book amount and it is also stated that, the complainant has filed Annexure I showing the discrepancy between the payment  mode and receipts issued and in payment mode is shown to the tune of Rs. 6,22,818/- but he had not produced any documents for accessories converted to cash Rs. 10,000/- and if the said amount is deducted from Rs. 622818/- then payable amount comes to Rs. 6,12,818/- and out of that amount a sum of Rs. 3415 was refunded by the OP No. 1 to the complainant vide cheque no. 093133 dated 03.02.2016 and thereby the total amount against the said vehicle on road comes to Rs. 6,09,403/- when as per quotation and order booking the complainant had to pay Rs. 6,22,818/- and the complainant had paid the sum of Rs. 13,415/- less. The OP No. 1 has further stated in the W/V that, the complainant referred Annexure IX i.e complaint which shows that, after lapse of 8.5 months from the date of delivery of the vehicle the complainant had stated that, he had paid a sum of Rs. 62281/- as per quotation but no such documents had been produced by him and there by the access payment of Rs. 15052/- did not arise at all. The OP No. 1 has further stated that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and requires to be dismissed and statements made in paragraph no. 1 of the complaint is more or less correct / the statements made in paragraph no. 2 is baseless and unfounded and denied by the OP No. 1 / The statements made in paragraph no. 3,4,5 are matter of record, paragraph no. 6 is not correct/ the OP No. 1 has already stated in respect of the statements of the paragraph no. 7 of the complaint / the statements made in paragraph no. 8 of the complaint is denied by the OP No. 1/ paragraph no. 9 and 10 of the complaint is no feasible for a company to send its officers to a place of customer who is unnecessarily disputing a matter and taking excuse of non convincing or non understanding / in respect of statements made in paragraph no. 11 and 12 of the complaint the OP No. 1 has clarified the same / as regards paragraph no. 13 of the complaint nobody of the OP No. 1 tried to make the complainant fool / statements of paragraph no. 14 and 15 of the complaint is not admitted and the complainant is to prove the allegations as mentioned therein. By filing the W/V the OP No. 1  praying for dismissal of this case.

On receipt of notice, the OP No. 2 appears through Vokalatnama, did not filed its reply . In its reply they denied all the allegations of the complainant and has stated that, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case against the OP No. 2 and this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the OP No. 2 is residing in New Delhi i.e beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission. It is also stated in the reply the OP No. 2 that, the complainant has not paid any amount of money to the OP No. 2 towards sale consideration of a car and it cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant / it is also stated that, the present dispute is arising strictly in between the complainant and OP No. 1 and the OP No. 2 has no role to play in the dispute and it has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party. It is further stated that, the complainant has not raised any allegation regarding the performance of the car, no deficiency can be attributed to the OP No. 2 and the complainant has failed to prove the fact that, the OP No. 2 had promised or assured services which was not fulfilled by it. By filing reply  the OP No. 2 praying for dismissal of this case.

Having heard the Ld. Advocates of both the side and on perusal of the complaint, written version as well as documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be considered/decided by this Commission.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as per the provision of C.P. Act. ?
2. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer under the provision of the C.P. Act. ?
3. Whether there is any cause of action to file this case by the complainant?
4. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged by the complainant?
5. Is the complainant has able to prove this case and entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

The complainant was given opportunity to prove his case by filing evidence as well as by filing supportive documents. In order to prove this case the complainant has adduced written evidence in the form of an affidavit. He also filed several documents by a firisty. In the written evidence, the complainant has specifically corroborated the contents of the complaint to the effect that, he purchased a care from the OP no. 1 by making a payment of Rs. 622818/-. He further stated in his evidence that, he filed the statements of accounts regarding such payment of Rs. 622818/- but the OP No. 1 has issued receipts for the sum of Rs. 6,04,491/- and there was a difference of Rs. 17,907/- . The Complainant in his evidence further stated that, subsequently a sum of Rs. 3415/- was refunded to him by the OP No. 1 by issuing a cheque in favour of the complainant. The Complainant in his evidence as also corroborated that, the OP No. 1 took a sum of Rs. 38039/- for registration of the car, but the OP No. 1 provided receipts of a total of Rs. 31206/- and therefore, the OP No. 1 took excess amount of Rs. 6832/- for which he did not provide any receipt. By filing the written evidence in the form of an affidavit the complainant has stated that, the OP No. 1 has taken excess amount of Rs. 14,492/- and by filling several documents he has been able to prove the case against the OP No. 1 and entitled to get Rs. 14,492/- from the OP No. 1.

At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate of the Complainant, submits that, they have already filed written argument and stated everything there and the complainant has been able to prove the case. During argument Ld. Advocate of the complainant also argued that, though the complainant has paid the quotation amount of Rs. 6,22,818/- but the OP No. 1 has issued receipts for the 6,04,491/-. He also argued that, the complainant on several occasion sent email to the OP No. 1 requesting for clarification and also requested the OP no. 1 for handing over the money receipts in respect of the Sum of Rs. 6,22,818/- but despite receiving the emails the OP No. 1 has did not supply the entire money receipt. It is also argument of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant that, for the purpose of registration of the vehicle the OP No. 1 took a sum of Rs. 38,039/- from the complainant but the OP No. 1 issued receipts for the sum of Rs. 31,206/- and thereby he recovered excess amount of Rs. 6832/- from the complainant. Ld. Advocate of the complainant further argued that, the complainant has been able to prove his case not only through filing of evidence in the form of an affidavit but also the complainant has also filed several documents including the statements of account in support of its case.

To falsify the case of the complainant the OP No. 1 filed written evidence in the form of an affidavit and corroborated the statements so made in their written version. The OP No. 1 has adduced evidence of four witnesses to falsify the case of the complainant. In the written evidence of the OP No. 1 all the witnesses have corroborated the statements so made in the written version of the OP No. 1 and they specifically stated that the complainant has failed to substantiate its claim regarding payment of Rs. 622818/- at the time of purchasing the car from the OP No. 1. All the witnesses of the OP No. 1 have also stated that, the OP No. 1, on receiving emails of the complainant sent its proper reply but the complainant despite receiving proper explanation/ clarification about the emails sent another email to the OP No. 1 for causing harassment without any basis.

 At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate of the OP No. 1 argued that, the complainant has not been able to prove the case against the OP No. 1 would deliberately suppressed the actual fact before this Commission. It is further argument of the OP No. 1 that the complainant has not paid more the quotation amount and for attraction of the customer it had been propagated that the insurance is free for the customer if he purchases from the OP No. 1 on payment of Rs. 622818/- and insurance is not free from any insurance company but in the said quotation amount of Rs. 622818/- payable insurance charges is included and premium receipt has been given by the OP No. 1 to the complainant. It is further argument that, the OP No. 1 has cleared in its letter dated 04.09.2016 (Annexure XI) all the points raised by the complainant in his letter dated 03.09.2016 (Annexure X) but despite the said clarification the complainant does not like to understand the account and insisting for a cheque as per his illegal and baseless demand. It is further argument of the OP No. 1 that, there is in need to pay miscellaneous charges to a middle man at the time of registration of a vehicle and that’s why a sum of Rs. 38,018/- was mentioned in the quotation and booking form and it is within the knowledge of the complainant who did not raise any objection and it is not the case of the complainant that the OP No. 1 forced and compelled him to pay excess amount to get registration of the car. The further argument of the OP No. 1 that, on request of the complainant they issued a page of ledger account (Annexure VI) from which it is clear that, the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs. 6,12,818/- i.e Rs. 10,000/- less than the quotation amount. It is further argument of the OP No. 1 that there is nothing in the complaint nor in the evidence of the complainant that, under undue pressure and compulsion he paid as per quotation given by the OP No. 1 and four witnesses have corroborated the case of the OP No. 1.

At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate of the OP No. 2 submits that, they have already filed written argument and stated everything. He further argued that, there is no allegations against the said OP No. 2 in the complaint of the Complainant / there is no cause of action against the OP No. 2 / no money was paid to the OP No. 2 by the Complainant towards sale consideration of car and for which the OP No. 2 cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service/ the present dispute has arisen strictly in between the complainant and the OP No. 1 and the instant OP No. 2 has no role to play in the dispute and he has been unnecessarily been impleaded as a party of this case/ the complainant has not raised any allegations regarding performance of the car, and the complainant has failed to prove that the OP No. 2 had promised or assured services which was not fulfilled by the OP No. 2. Ld. Advocate  of the OP No. 2 praying for dismissal of this case.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the sides and on perusal of the Complaint, documents filed on behalf of the Complainant, written versions of the OPs, documents filed by them, evidence of the parties, it is admitted fact  the complainant has purchased one car from the OP No. 1. It is also admitted fact that, since after few days from the date of purchase of the car, the complainant on 30.08.2016 made a complaint to the OP No. 1 and forwarded the copy to OP No. 2 stating that excess amount of Rs. 15052/- was taken from him but no receipt was given to him by the OP No. 1. It is further admitted fact that, the OP No. 1 acknowledged the email of the complainant on 31.08.2016 with a promise to co-ordinate with their dealer to address the same.

From the record it further reveals that, the complainant received one email on 01.09.2016 from Goutam Mondal from Accounts of the OP No. 1 along with page of ledger (Annexure VI).

From the Annexure VI it reveals that, the OP No. 1 took a sum of Rs. 18,894/- from the Complainant towards cost of Insurance though as per Quotation it was free. In this regard the OP No. 1 in their written version, Brief Notes of Argument claims that, the insurance was not free for all intending purchaser but it was propagated if the purchasers purchase the car on payment of Rs. 6,22,818/- and payment receipt was given to the complainant. In the case in hand the Complainant has not only stated in his complaint, but also in his evidence as well as in the Brief Notes of Argument has stated that, the OP No. 1 took a sum of Rs. 6,22,818/- from the complainant and the complainant has stated the same in his statement of accounts. The Complainant has also been able to prove that, the OP No. 1 issued money receipts for the sum of Rs. 6,04,911/- and thereafter refunded a sum of Rs. 3415/- to the Complainant and on bare calculation it is proves that, there was difference of Rs. 14,492/- (Rs. 6,22,818- Rs. 604911- Rs. 3415).

From the complaint, evidence of the complainant and documents filed by the complainant it proves that, the OP No. 1 took a sum of Rs. 38,039/- from the Complainant but the OP No. 1 gave receipts of a total sum of Rs. 31,206/- and on bare calculation it reveals that, the OP No. 1 took excess amount of Rs. 6832/- (Rs. 38039- Rs. 31206). But the OP No. 1 did not submit any receipts to the complainant for the said excess amount of Rs. 6832/- . It is also not mentioned in the quotation that, the complainant / intending purchaser had to pay excess amount of Rs. 6832/- towards brokerage amount at the time of registration of the car. It is also not noted in the ledger page of the OP No. 1 (Annexure VI). Be that as it may, it is well known to everyone that there is in need of some Miscellaneous charges at the time of the Registration of any vehicle. Accordingly, we are not stating anything in respect of that excess amount of Rs. 6832/- in this case.

Moreover, in the evidence in chief of the OP No. 1 in para no. 8, the OP no. 1 has stated that, the complainant has paid Rs. 6,12,818/- which was less than the Quotation amount of Rs. 6,22,818/- and he had not paid Rs. 10,000/-. But in Para No. 11 of the evidence the OP No. 1 has admits that, the Complainant has paid Rs. 6,22,818/- and the OP No. 1 has failed to explain before this Commission why there is difference in the statements of accounts as claimed by the OP No. 1 and we can safely presume that, both the statements so made in para no. 8 and para no. 11 of the evidence of the OP No. 1 are contradictory with each other and the OP No. 1 has failed to remove the discrepancy by producing cogent evidence/ valid documents.

From the statements of accounts as well as from the emails, documents submitted by the parties it appears that, the OP No. 1 has furnished receipts for the sum of Rs. 6,04,911/-  and the complainant has produced documents before this Commission showing that he paid Rs. 6,22,818/- i.e difference was Rs. 622818-Rs. 604911 = Rs. 17,907/- and subsequently the OP No. 1 refunded a sum of Rs. 3415/-to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant is still entitled to get a sum of Rs. 14,492/- from the OP No. 1 which has not yet paid by them. From the record it reveals that the OP no. 1 has supplied the documents relating to the insurance of the car.

Considering all, we are of the view that, the complainant has been able to prove his case against the OP No. 1 to the effect that, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 towards the complainant as well as restrictive trade practice.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That the instant Consumer Case being no. 94/2017 is allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 and dismissed against the OP No. 2. The OP No. 1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 14,492/-(Rupees Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Two) only to the complainant. The OP No. 1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand) only to the complainant towards the compensation for causing mental pain, agony and harassment and the OP No. 1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to the complainant towards the cost of legal proceedings. The OP No. 1 is  further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

The OP No. 1 is also directed to pay interest @4% per annum to the Complainant on the awarded amount with effect from the date of filing of this case till making payment of the entire amount.

The OP No. 1 is directed to pay the awarded amount within 45 days from this day failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps against the OP No. 1 as per the provisions of law.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.