This is the case of the Complainant under Section 12 of the CP Act of Smt. UjjalaSaha Roy & Nanigopal Roy against M/s Mohon Hyundai Uddyog Pvt. Ltd & its sales consultant P. Saha (i.e the OP) seeking refund of Rs. 101000/- with interest on registration number WB08B-9553 with exchange offer.

            The case of the Complainant is that being the owner of an old Santro car having registration number WB26K-5569 they wanted to get it replaced by a new Grand i-10 having registration number WB08B-9553 at Rs. 6,00,386/- and for doing so they approached the Op who were authorized car dealer. The Opposite Parties fixed the price of the old car on 07.06.2016 at Rs. 2,52,000/- and the same was reflected in the agreement dated 22.06.2016. With an impression that Rs. 2,52,000/- would be deducted from Rs. 6,00,386/- they went in for purchase of  a new Grand i-10 car by taking loan. But the OP finally issued a bill on 04.07.2016 showing deduction of Rs. 1,51,000/- on account of the price of the old car. Hence this case for the aforesaid reliefs.

            Both the Ops entered appearance but they did not file WV in time. This is why the case proceeded ex parte. Liberty was however given to the OP for taking part in the argument. The complainant adduced evidence and produced several documents including invoice. The Ops, did not turn up to advance argument or to file brief notes of argument. Of course, the case is based upon documents and it can be decided easily after giving due consideration to the material available on record.

            The dispute stays confined to why was the price fixed for the old car.

            It is quite obvious from the documents issued by the OP in relation to the price of the old santro car suffer from inconsistency. Particularly the statement of account dt. 04.07.2016 and the agreement dt. 22.06.2016 appears to be contradictory to each other with reference to the price of the old car. Both were issued by the OP and both bear the signature of the OP 2. The document dt. 22.06.2016 speaks of Rs. 252,000/- where as the document dt. 04.07.2016 Rs. 151,000/-. There is no explanation for such cut-down in the price. It stand to reason that though its price was fixed at Rs. 252,000/- at the time of final talks on 22.06.2016 the deduction of Rs. 151,000/- was made therefore at the time of drawing up final Bill on 04.07.2016. It was unjustifiable and unethical. The dealer was wholly unjustified in doing so. What they did can very well come within the purview of ‘unlawful trade practice’ They improperly caused loss of Rs. (252,000-151,000/- is equal to101,000/-) to the complainants.

            Again, the OPs skipped the Trial for obvious reasons. Had they got any explanation for cutting down the price of the old car they surely would have contested the case to highlight the same. Their abstention from the Trial speaks volumes for their malpractice while striking the deal with the Complainants. Therefore the complainants should be given the reliefs sought for the ends of Justice. They would get back the excess amount paid to the OPs with interest. The OP should be made to compensate for indulging in unlawful practice.

            The Complainant would get back the sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- with interest @ 6% pa from the date of filing the Complaint till realization. They will get a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost from the Ops. The OPs would also pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.

            Hence it is ordered that the Op 1 will pay Rs. 1,01,000/- with interest @ 6% pa from the date of filing the Complaint till realization within 3 months hence. It will also pay 3,000/- + 10,000/- total 13,000/- within 3 months hence failing which the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum.