BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.      

                                                          Complaint No.: 49 of 2017.

                                                          Date of Institution: 14.03.2017.

                                                          Date of Order: 27.05.2019.

Sudheer Kumar son of Shri Laxman Bhardwaj, resident of H. No. 393, Ward No. 27, near Railway Station, Krishna Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

M/s Ryderz, authorized Yamaha dealer, MCD Unit No. 1809, Vidya Nagar, Meham Road, Bhiwani, Haryana through its Proprietor.

…...Opposite Party.

                             Complaint under Section 12 of the

 Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.

Present:       Shri Naveen Tanwar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP already exparte.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   Brief facts of complainant’s case are that he had purchased a scooter Yamaha RAY ZR DRUM from the OP by paying Rs.56,000/- through cheque and the OP issued the delivery challan and did not provide the original invoice by saying that original invoice will be given after clearing cheque.  It is alleged that lateron the OP has given the invoice No.428 dated 27.1.2017, wherein the value of the aforesaid Scooter was mentioned as Rs.51,613/- and the OP has charged extra amount of Rs.2387/- from the complainant by playing fraud.  It is further alleged that the complainant has requested the OP to refund the extra amount, but to no effect.  It is further alleged that a legal notice has also been got served upon the OP, which was replied by the OP and they refused to refund the extra amount.  Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice Shri Sumit Yadav, Proprietor appeared on behalf of OP and filed the reply denying the allegations of the complainant.  It is alleged by the OP that the bill provided of Rs.51,613/- just due to clerical mistake by the billing associate and customer was requested to get it corrected, but there was no response from him.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Lateron no one appeared on behalf of the OP and the OP was proceeded as exparte vide order dated 15.3.2019. 

4.                Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record duly sworn affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to C7 in his evidence to prove his version and close the evidence. 

5.                On the other hand, no evidence produced by the OP to controvert the case of the complainant.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant at length and gone through the case file carefully.

7.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the OP has charged an amount of Rs.2387/- extra by playing fraud and not refunded the same despite request. 

8.                After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record his duly sworn affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill as Annexure C1, copy of legal notice Annexure C2, copy of postal receipt of legal notice as Annexure C3, copy of delivery challan Annexure C4, copy of insurance Annexure C5, copy of sale Certificate Annexure C6 and copy of certificate of inspection as Annexure C7.  On the other hand, the OP has failed to produce any cogent & convincing documentary evidence to rebut the case of the complainant.  So, it is clearly proved on record that the OP has charged an amount of Rs.2387/- extra from the complainant illegally.  The only plea taken by the OP is that the bill has been issued of less amount due to some clerical mistake, but the OP has failed to place on record the copies of other bills of the same scooter of same model to prove its plea, whereas the copies of bills are available with the OP.  So, it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  It appears that OP has nothing to say in this case to controvert the stand taken by the complainant. 

10.              Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OP is directed as under: -

i.        To refund extra amount of Rs.2387/- (Two thousand three hundred eighty seven only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.

ii.       To pay Rs. 1100/- (Eleven hundred only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship.

iii.      To pay Rs. 1100/- (Eleven hundred only) as litigation charges.

The complainant is directed to hand over the old refrigerator to the OP.  The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 27.05.2019.       

(Saroj Bala Bohra)                    (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                         Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                     Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.