Delhi

North East

CC/223/2017

Shri Haim Kumar Mahour - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Rajiv Raj Bajaj - Opp.Party(s)

10 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 223/17

 

In the matter of:

	Shri Haim Kumar Mahour S/o Late Shri Ramesh Chand R/o H.No. A-1/50, Harsh Vihar, Delhi-110093. Also At: D-1/251, Harsh Vihar, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Rajiv Raj Bajaj Showroom: A-1, Jhilmil Industrial Area Main G.T.Road, Near Metro Station Delhi-110095 Through its Manager Mr. Vibhash	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

12.07.2017 10.12.2019 10.12.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts as culled out in the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Bajaj V15 Dark Montago Blue Vikrant Motorcycle (Bike) bearing Engine No. JHYRHM54678 and Chasis    No. MD2A74BY9HRM12025 from OP on 30.03.2017 on making down payment of Rs. 21,030/- in cash duly acknowledged receipt of by OP vide receipt no. 1929. The OP had disclosed the total purchase price of subject bike to the tune of Rs. 73,100/-. For the rest of the amount, the complainant availed of vehicle loan from Bajaj Finance Company Ltd to the tune of Rs. 57,600/- to be paid in 12 EMIs of Rs. 5,288/- totaling Rs. 63,456/-. Therefore the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 21,030/- and Rs. 57,600/- totaling Rs. 78,630/- to OP as against its original sale price of  Rs. 73,100/-. Therefore OP had received / charged in excess  Rs. 5,530/- from complainant. Complainant approached several times for refund of the said amount but the OP flatly refused to refund the same on 28.04.2017. complainant got a legal notice dated 03.05.2017 through his counsel served on OP demanding refund which despite service went unheeded to by OP. therefore feeling aggrieved at the deficient service and harassment meted out to the complainant by OP, complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of directions to refund the excess amount of Rs. 5,530/- with interest @18% p.a. alongwith Rs. 22,000/- as litigation charges.

Complainant has attached copy of cash receipt no. 1929 dated 30.03.2017 issued by OP in favor of complainant acknowledging Rs. 21,030/- in cash, copy of sale invoice no. VSI102742017000093 dated 07.04.2017 issued by OP under its stamp and seal with respect to the total vehicle price inclusive of VAT to the tune of Rs. 73,100/-.

2. Notice was issued to OP on 24.07.2017. OP entered appearance and filed written statement in which it took the defence that the vehicle price of Rs. 73,100/- was in the case of unfinanced vehicle whereas the complainant’s bike was a financed one. OP admitted to having received Rs. 55,084/- from Bajaj Finance Co. and Rs. 21,030/- from complainant towards the subject bike. OP further submitted that it had charged Rs. 3,000/- for documentation including stamp duty file charges etc from the complainant which the complainant had agreed upon at the time of sale and denying having charged Rs. 5,530/- extra from the complainant. Lastly OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit was filed by eth complainant in rebuttal to the defence taken by OP in written statement and reiterated his grievance of having being charged excess of the fixed bike price by OP. Complainant further disputed charges of Rs. 3,000/- taken by OP for documentation since it is the prerogative of the finance company.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP as reproduction of its written statement.
5. Written arguments were filed by both parties to reemphasis their respective grievance / defence.

OP was directed vide order dated 28.05.2019 to produce the motor bike rate card at the relevant time of purchase i.e. March-April 2017. However OP could not produce the same.

6. We have heard the arguments addressed the complainant and have perused the documents / pleading placed on record by both sides.

Neither complainant nor OP have been able to prove the exact amount receive from Finance Company i.e. whether Rs. 57,600/- as claimed by complainant or Rs. 55,084/- as claimed by OP. However as per OP’s own admission, it had received Rs. 76,114/- towards the sale of the subject bike.

The defence taken by OP of the price of the subject motorcycle pegged at Rs. 73,100/- in case of unfinanced vehicle is negated / contradicted by its own sale invoice dated 07.04.2017 which mentions the said price for vehicle financed as can be seen against the endorsement Financed By: Bajaj Finance Ltd and nowhere are Rs. 3,000/- mentioned against any head in the said invoice. Therefore, in view of OP itself having admitted having received Rs. 76,114/- for the subject bike, the same is found Rs. 3,000/- in excess of the originally agreed price between the parties.

Section 2(1)(c)(iv) of Consumer Protection Act deals with the present complaint of a trader or the service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the service mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price –

1. fixed by or under any law for the time being in force;
2. displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods;
3. displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force;
4. agreed between the parties.

The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of M/s Cargo Tarpaulin Industries Vs Sri Mallikarjun B. Kori (2007) III CPJ 305 (NC) passed on 05.07.2007 in a similar case where the petitioner had charged Rs. 112/- for Duck Back Baby sheet against MRP of Rs. 90/- in its contentions that the MRP was Rs. 124/- but the product of having an old label of Rs. 92/- and after discussion the price was settled at Rs. 112/- had rejected the contention of the petitioner of MRP and upheld the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission which had imposed exemplary compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner and dismissed the Revision Petition.      

7. In the present case since as per own admission the OP has received Rs. 76,114/- as against Rs. 73,100/- towards the motorcycle sale price i.e. Rs. 3,000/- in excess of price agreed upon between the parties and refused to refund the same to the complainant, this act on the part of OP is nothing short of indulgence in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for having over charged in excess of the agreed upon sale price and therefore should be curbed.
8. We therefore allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the excess amount of Rs. 3,014/- to the complainant with interest @6% from the date of institution of the complaint till realization. We further direct OP to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant towards litigation charges. Let the order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.   File be consigned to record room.
11.   Announced on 10.12.2019 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member