Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member
- Smt.Sureshta Mahajan complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant has purchased one brand new Fiat Linea Car from the opposite parties. The representatives of the opposite parties assured the complainant at the time of dealing that complainant will be given tax rebate facility of Rs. 30,000/- alojngwith the settled negotiation regarding the purchase of abovesaid vehicle . Opposite parties have also charged Rs. 26,225/- as premium for the insurance of the said vehicle at that time, whereas the complainant had never purchased the insurance policy from the opposite parties at the time of purchase of the abovesaid vehicle . Rather the complainant had purchased the insurance policy of the vehicle from some another Insurance company. The complainant requested the opposite parties many a times to refund the premium amounting to Rs. 26,225/-, but to no avail. Opposite parties have also charged logistic charges amounting to Rs. 5000/- from the complainant unnecessarily which the complainant is not liable to pay as per terms and conditions. The complainant approached the opposite parties many a times and requested the officials of the opposite parties to refund the abovesaid amount, but they have openly refused to accede to the request of the complainant. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 14.8.2015 upon the opposite parties , but the opposite parties did not give any reply to the legal notice. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
- Opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 31225/- alongwith interest ;
- Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law; that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum ; that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint ; that the transaction between the parties is a commercial one as the vehicle in question was purchased for the commercial purpose, as such this Forum has got no jurisdiction over the matter . On merits, it was submitted that in reply to para 3 it was submitted that complainant was not given rebate rather it was company’s discount at the time of purchase as per scheme of the company and the same was duly given to the complainant at that time. In reply to para 4 , it was submitted that the insurance is always done under the instructions of the party at the time of purchase, which was duly done at the time of said sale. Rather the said insurance was free of cost, duly reflected in the ledger account of the replying opposite party. In reply to para 6, it was submitted that Rs. 1000/- was charged as temporary number plates and temporary RC and Rs. 4000/- were charged for warehousing and polishing charges. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. On the other hand opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that the vehicle has been bought by the complainant to run the same as a Taxi/commercial purpose, as such the present complaint merits dismissal . That the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of misjoinder of parties. The complainant has not made the Insurance company a party to the present complaint though the complainant is seeking refund of the premium of the Insurance. It is pertinent to mention that usually insurance policies are issued based on proposal forms signed by the customer. These Insurance policies are sold by the authorized dealer in this case the Insurance policy was sold by opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 has no role to play between opposite party No.1 and the complainant . Therefore, opposite party No.2 cannot be held liable for the act of opposite party No.1. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have specifically been denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
4. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of invoice Ex.C-2, copy of Insurance cover note Ex.C-3, copy of estimate Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.J.B.Singh,Manager, Waves Cars (P) Ltd. opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
6. On the other hand Sh.Gaurav Arora,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Harsh Mishra Ex.OP2W1/1, copy of resolution Ex.OP2W1/A and copy of car history Ex.OP2W1/B and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
8. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts narrated in the complaint and submitted that complainant was not given tax rebate facility of Rs. 30000/- as assured by the opposite party at the time of selling the vehicle in question. It has further been alleged that opposite parties have charged Rs. 26,225/- as premium for the insurance of the said vehicle at the time of purchase of the vehicle, whereas the complainant had never purchased the insurance policy from the opposite parties at the time of purchase of the abovesaid vehicle . It has further been alleged that opposite parties have also charged logistic charges amounting to Rs. 5000/- from the complainant unnecessarily which the complainant is not liable to pay as per terms and conditions. The complainant approached the opposite parties many a times and requested the officials of the opposite parties to refund the abovesaid amount, but they have openly refused to accede to the request of the complainant . Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. On the other hand opposite parties have repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that complainant was not given rebate rather it was company’s discount at the time of purchase as per scheme of the company and the same was duly given to the complainant at that time. It was submitted that the insurance is always done under the instructions of the party at the time of purchase, which was duly done at the time of said sale. Rather the said insurance was free of cost, duly reflected in the ledger account of the replying opposite party. It was further submitted that Rs. 1000/- was charged as temporary number plates and temporary RC and Rs. 4000/- were charged for warehousing and polishing charges and no amount of account of logistic charges were ever been charged by the opposite parties.has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
10. The main contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties have unnecessarily charged premium amount of Rs. 26,225/- on account of Insurance of the vehicle in question as well as Rs. 5000/- on account of logistic charges. The complainant has also claimed the tax rebate facility of Rs. 30000/- as negotiated by the opposite party at the time of selling the vehicle in question. On the other hand the opposite party has denied the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the opposite party never committed with the complainant to give any tax rebate facility to him rather complainant was not given rebate ,it was company’s discount at the time of purchase as per scheme of the company and the same was duly given to the complainant at that time. Moreover the opposite party never charged the amount of Rs. 5000/- on account of logistic charges. But , however, perusal of the detail of payment produced by the complainant on record Ex.C-4 clearly stated that the total amount included Rs. 5000/- on account of logistic charges and this document has no where denied by the opposite party by filing any cogent and convincing evidence. On the other hand the contention of the opposite parties that they have charged the complainant for Rs. 5000/- i.e. Rs. 1000/- as temporary number plates and temporary RC and Rs. 4000/- were charged for warehousing and polishing charges from the complainant, but the supra document Ex.C-4 clearly states that opposite party has charged Rs. 5000/- on account of logistic charges for which they have no legal right to charge. But, however, the opposite party has correctly charged Rs. 26,225/- on account of premium for obtaining Insurance policy because no new vehicle can run on the road without any Insurance at the time of selling by the agency holder.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we are of the view that the opposite parties have wrongly charged the complainant Rs. 5000/- on account of logistic charges and we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs. 5000/- charged on account of logistic charges alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization. Opposite parties are also burdened with compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- besides Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 9.5.2017
