OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.22/2015
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Sri U.N.Deka - Member
Shri Mahesh Coomar Garodia - Complainant
S/O Late Gangadhar Garodia
Kamarpatty, H.B.Road,Fancy Bazar,
Guwahati-1,Kamrup (Metro)
-vs-
M/S Poddar Car World(P) Ltd. -Opp. party
G.S.Road, Khanapara, Guwahati -781022,
District – Kamrup (Metro), Assam.
Appearance-
Learned advocate for the complainant Sri Mahendra Jain
Learned advocate for the Opp.Party - None appeared
Date of argument- 29.3.2016
Date of judgment- 8.4..2016
Judgment
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1) The complaint filed by the complainant Sri Mahesh Coomar Garodia was admitted on 26.3.2015 and notices were sent to the opp.parties which was deemed served upon them, but they defaulted to appear before this forum to contest the case and therefore, this forum vide order dtd. 29.10.15 directed that this case againstthe opp.parties will proceed on exparte. The complainant side filed evidence in affidavit and his counsel also filed written argument and has forwarded his oral argument on 29.3.2016.
2) The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant on 16.5.14 paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the opp.party for purchase of a wagon R car vide receipt No.54380 and again on 17.5.2014 paid Rs.4,87,325/- to the opp.party of which in the head Ex show room price of the vehicle is Rs.4,42,479/-, the head of Insurance charges Rs.17,339/-, in the head of 4th year extended warranty Rs.5,483/-, and in the head of Registration charges Rs.22,024/-, on 17.5.14 the opp.party delivered him bill of Rs.4,10,992/- only while he had taken delivery of the vehicle. As the price of the vehicle meaning thereby, the opp.party had taken excess amount of Rs.31,487/-on the price of the vehicle. He paid Rs.22,024/- to the opp.party as registration charge, but opp.party issued money receipt of Rs.14,468/- as a charge of insurance money thereby opp.party collected excess amount of Rs.7,556/- in registration fee, but on objection the opp.party refunded him only Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant vide letter dtd.16.6.14 and 18.6.13 demanded refund of Rs. 31,487/-, but the opp.party vide letter dtd. 25.6.14 and another letter made unreasonable explanation for charging the excess amount. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.31,487/- from the opp.party and is also entitled to get back Rs.5,556/- which is the opp.party had collected in excess of registration fees and also Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.
3) We have perused argument of learned advocate Mr.N.Jain for the complainant. We have also perused the evidence filed by the complainant. From Ex.1 and Ex2 it is clear that the complainant paid Rs. 1,000/- to the opp.party on 16.5.14 as advance money for purchasing a Wagon R from them and also paid Rs. 4,87,325/- on 17.5.14 as price of said vehicle. FromEx 3 it is found that the opp.party issued the bill dtd. 17.5.14 to the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,10,992/- from which it transpires that the Opp.Party No.1 received an excess amount of Rs.31,487/- against the price of the vehicle he purchased from them. Therefore, the opp.party is liable to refund the said amount to the complainant. Secondly, from Ex.4 which is the receipt of the registration fees of the vehicle, it transpires that the registration fee charge by the D.T.O.Officeis Rs.14,408/- but the opp.party had receivedRs.22,024/- as the charge of the registration fee meaning thereby the opp.party had received excess amount of Rs.7,616/- from the complainant in the head of registration charge of the vehicle. Therefore, the opp.party is liable to refund that amount to the complainant. The complainant, is found to received Rs.2,000/- from the opp.party while he had objected to charging excess amount in the head of registration charge and therefore , the opp.party is liable to return Rs.5,616, but the complainant demands Rs. 5,556/- as excess amount taken by the opp.party for registration of the car by the opp.party and hence the opp.party is liable to refund Rs. 5,556/- to the complainant. It is also seen that the complainant did so many correspondences to the opp.party requesting them to refund the said excess amounts, but they refused to refund the said amount. It is seen from Ex 7 that after receiving demand notice from complainant , the opp.party on 25.6.2014 issued a letter explaining why they had receivedRs.31,487/- in excess from the complainant. The Said explanation cannot be accepted as logical explanation . Therefore, we are of opinion that the opp.party is liable to refund to the tune of Rs.37,043/- (Rs.31,487 + 5,556 ) to the complainant and they are also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- for causing harassment to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
4) Because of what has been discussed as above, we are of opinion that the complainant has a prima facie case against the opp.party and that is also proved. Therefore, the complaint is allowed on exparte and the opp.party is directed to refund Rs.37.043/- to the complainant with interest@ 12 % per annum from 26.3.15 and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and another amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding, within twomonths, in default of which, the other two amounts shall also carry interest @ 12 % per annum.
Given under our hands and seal of this forum on this day 8th April, 2016
Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.
(Md.S.Hussain)
President
(Mr.U.N.Deka)
Member
