DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/158

Date of Institution : 28.02.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 18.07.2022

Ms. Vijay Laxmi wife of Sh. Ashok Joshi resident of House No. 2167, Gali Police Chowki Wali, Islamabad, Amritsar.    …Complainant

Versus

M/s Novelty Hyundai through its Director/Owner/Principal Officer, GT Road, Near New Amritsar, Amritsar. 

…Opposite Party

 

Complaint U/S 12 of The Consumer Protection Act as amended up to date

Present: Sh. Deepak Bhandari Adv counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Mohan Arora Adv counsel for opposite party.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Novelty Hyundai, Amritsar. (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that she had to purchase car model Hyundai Xcent and she approached opposite party who issued a proforma invoice for Rs. 7,12,630/- i.e. Rs. 6,90,387/- for the price of car and Rs. 22,243/- for its insurance. The complainant paid demanded amount of Rs. 7,12,630/- to the opposite party vide demand draft dated 29.12.2017 which opposite party got encashed from the bank of the complainant. The complainant took delivery of the car for which invoice dated 29.12.2017 in the name of complainant for total sum of Rs. 6,90,387/-. The opposite party delivered certificate of insurance of New India Assurance Company in which total payable amount of insurance of the vehicle is given as Rs. 14,061/-. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of the officer for excess charged amount of Rs. 8,182/- in the name of insurance from the complainant and demanded back excess amount charged by them bot to no effect which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite party. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 15.1.2018 to the opposite party but of no use. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party may be directed to pay amount of Rs. 8,182/- excess charged by the opposite party for insurance alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 29.12.2017 till its realization.      

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony.

3) To pay cost of legal expenses.

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and she has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. No excess amount as alleged has been charged from the complainant. The car was purchased in the name of the complainant but it was sons of the complainant who visited to opposite party for the purpose of purchase of car and all schemes, promotions, discounts, estimate amount and other expenditure were explained by the opposite parties to the sons of the complainant. Each documents has been signed by Manish Joshi and Gaurav Joshi sons of the complainant and not by the complainant. After settling the account of the complainant there remains excess amount of Rs. 1,000/- due towards the complainant but she is not accepting the same and is adamant to receive the alleged amount of Rs. 8,182/- for which she is not entitled to receive.  

4. On merits, it is admitted that proforma invoice was issued in the name of the complainant in which car value of Rs. 6,90,387/- was rightly mentioned by the opposite party but it is denied that opposite party told about Rs. 22,243/- as insurance charges. Proforma invoice mentioned value of the car as Rs. 6,90,387/- and two different amounts has also been shown as Rs. 14,061/- and Rs. 8,182/- as insurance charges and wax coating charges respectively. RC charges and amount of accessory was not mentioned in the proforma invoice. Booking amount of Rs. 5,000/- was received from Gaurav Joshi son of the complainant against proper receipt. It is admitted that on 29.12.2017 draft of Rs. 7,12,360/- was received from the complainant and sons of the complainant told to the opposite party that remaining amount as per invoice raised by the opposite party will be paid by them. Since the complainant has sold old car to the opposite party so as per promotion scheme of the company Rs. 10,000/- was credited in the account of the complainant. Another amount of Rs. 45,379/- was also credited in the account of the complainant as discount on the car and after settling account of the complainant Rs. 5,000/- was excess paid by the complainant which was duly paid back by the opposite party by way of cheque dated 8.1.2018 and thereafter another amount of Rs. 1000/- was due in the account of the complainant for which opposite party approached the complainant but they refused to accept the same and demanded amount of Rs. 8,182/-. It is admitted that insurance policy for sum of Rs. 14,061/- was issued in the name of the complainant. The opposite party charged Rs. 14,061/- as insurance charges, Rs. 8182/- as wax coating charges as per invoice dated 31.12.2017, amount of Rs. 7,400/- as accessory sale and Rs. 46,981/- as RC charges in total car sale price including above mentioned charges comes to Rs. 7,68,011/- out of which Rs. 7,12,630/- was received by way of draft, Rs. 5,000/- as booking amount, Rs. 10,000/- as exchange bonus and after settling all such amounts excess amount of Rs. 6,000/- was there and out of which Rs. 5,000/- was paid back to the complainant vide cheque dated 8.1.2018 and there remains balance amount of Rs. 1,000/- for which opposite party never refused to pay. There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Lastly the opposite party  prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

5. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C-1, postal receipt dated 6.1.2018 Ex.C-2, copy of policy schedule Ex.C-3, copy of policy cover note Ex.C-4, copy of demand draft Ex.C-5, copy of aadhaar card Ex.C-6, copy of tax invoice Ex.C-7, copy of proforma invoice Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party  tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajesh Kakaria Ex.OP-1, copy of resolution Ex.OP-2, copy of power of attorney Ex.OP-3, copy of ledger Ex.OP-4, copy of invoice dated 29.12.2017 Ex.OP-5, copy of sale letter Ex.OP-6, copy of aadhaar card Ex.OP-7, copy of letter dated 28.12.2017 Ex.OP-8, copy of insurance certificate Ex.OP-9, copy of invoice dated 31.12.2017 Ex.OP-10 to Ex.OP-12, copy of receipt dated 31.12.2017 Ex.OP-13 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file carefully. Written arguments also filed by the opposite party. 

8. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant purchased car model Hyundai Xcent from the opposite party and also paid amount of Rs. 7,12,630/- to the opposite party vide demand draft dated 29.12.2017 which opposite party encashed from the bank of the complainant. It is also admitted by the opposite party that they have issued proforma invoice to the complainant Ex.C-8. The main dispute between the parties is that the complainant alleged in the complaint that opposite party charged Rs. 22,243/- from her on account of insurance whereas the insurance company issued policy schedule for total payable amount of Rs. 14,061/- and in this way the opposite party excess charged Rs. 8,182/- from the complainant on account of insurance of vehicle. 

9. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that they have charged Rs. 14,061/- from the complainant on account of insurance claim and Rs. 8,182/- for wax coating of car and handling charges. We have also carefully perused the copy of proforma invoice Ex.C-8 in which the amount of Rs. 22,243/- segregated in two amounts of Rs. 14,061/- and Rs. 8,182/- and total amount mentioned as Rs. 7,12,630/-. Further, the opposite party gave full details of the amount received from the complainant and costs of every item in their written version. The opposite party mentioned in their written version that costs of the car is Rs. 6,90,387/- and they have charged Rs. 14,061/- as insurance charges, Rs. 8182/- as wax coating charges and handling charges as per invoice dated 31.12.2017 Ex.OP-11, amount of Rs. 7,400/- as accessory sale and Rs. 46,981/- as RC charges and in total car sale price including above mentioned charges comes to Rs. 7,68,011/- out of which Rs. 7,12,630/- was received by way of draft, Rs. 5,000/- as booking amount, Rs. 10,000/- as exchange bonus and after settling all such amounts excess amount of Rs. 6,000/- was there and out of which Rs. 5,000/- was paid back to the complainant vide cheque dated 8.1.2018 and there remains balance amount of Rs. 1,000/- for which opposite party never refused to pay. The bill of Rs. 8,180/- Ex.OP-11 is duly signed by the son of the complainant. Further, the opposite party also filed copy of account statement of complainant Ex.OP-4 in which also full details of the costs of every item and amount received from the complainant have given. From this document it is also admitted by the opposite party that they received excess Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant which they still ready to refund. As the opposite party had not charged any excess amount from the complainant on account of insurance or anything else, so there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

10. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. However, complainant can approach the opposite parties and collect the amount of Rs. 1,000/- which was excess received by the opposite parties and they are ready to refund. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        18th Day of July 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member