DATE OF DISPOSAL: 20.08.2024.
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant purchased an electric scooter model name OPTIMA HS 500 ER of the brand HERO ELECTRIC bearing registration No. OD-07-AJ-7806 from O.P. had paid the total amount of Rs.89,500.00, out of the total amount the complainant had paid Rs.5000/- as advance booking on 10.07.2021 and rest amount Rs.84,500/- on 07.08.2021. Both payments were done through cash and for those transactions the money receipts were also supplied by the O.P. The whole paid amount Rs.89,500/- included the Ex-showroom cost of the scooter, the road tax, and other RTO expenses for the scooter, the 5 years insurance policy of the scooter and a steel bodyguard as accessories on free of cost within that price. On 10.08.2021 the O.P. delivered the above mentioned brand and model scooter to the complainant along with the invoice for the scooter, Tax collection and other RTO expenses money receipt by the Transport Department against the scooter, an insurance policy of SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE with validation of 5 years and a steel body frame fitted on the scooter as accessories. As per the supplied document by the O.P. the ex-showroom cost of the scooter is Rs.80,806.00 including 5% GST mentioned on the invoice bearing INVOICE No. NM104/21-22 of invoice dated 10.08.2021 of the O.P. The road tax and other RTO expenses for the scooter are Rs.6486/- mentioned on receipt No. OR7D210800000789 of Odisha Motor Vehicle Department dated 11.08.2021 and the insurance premium amount is Rs.2344/- including 18% GST mentioned in the copy of Insurance policy No.331008/31/22/001708 of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. As per the clarification submitted by the O.P. on 11.04.2022 to RTO, Chhatrapur in connection to the complaint dated 04.04.2022 of Sibaprasad Shadangi with respect to the exact Ex-showroom cost of the above said vehicle. The exact cost of the scooter is Rs.58,980/- whereas the O.P. collected Rs.80,806.00 vide money receipt number NM104/21-22 of invoice dated 10.08.2021 towards the ex-show room cost for the said scooter from the complainant. The clarification letter of the O.P. dated 11.04.2022 to RTO, Chhatrapur its crystal clear that he collected an excess amount of Rs.21,826.00 from the complainant by producing false/misleading invoice to him. To get back the excess collected amount, the complainant several times approached the O.:P. but due to his dilly-dallying attitude, the complainant still did not get back the excess amount which was collected by the O.P. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to refund the collected excess amount of Rs.21,826/- with 15% interest, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Party.
4. The Opposite Party filed written version. It is stated that the complainant has purchased the concerned electric scooter during just post Covid-19 period. At that time Hero Electric Company had supplied a few numbers of electric scooters to O.P. However this O.P. received Rs.89,500/- issuing valid money receipts above that amount along with tax invoice, RTO, insurance. The tax invoice is signed and agreed by the complainant while he taking electric scooter from O.P. showroom. The said tax invoice vide No.NM104/21-22 clearly shows that “Total invoice value including accessories after GST” which has been agreed and signed by both complainant and Opposite party while delivering the electric scooter from shown room on 10.08.2021. The complainant has alleged in Para-5 that “a steel body accessories on free of cost within that price”. This statement is wrong, false and afterthought. This O.P. has never said that the accessories of Rs.21,826/- was free of cost. Thus it is a full choice of the complainant to fit accessories by giving extra accessories cost at his choice. When the complainant requested orally to fit accessories, this O.P. provided and attached all accessories by giving proper money receipts in his presence. So an accessory delivered him in freed of cost in question does not arise. The Ex-showroom costs of the scooter is Rs.80,806/- which is completely false and misleading. The Ex-showroom price is only vehicle price with GST. All other charges like RTO, Insurance, HSRP number plates, fittings and accessories are extra in cost. In fact, the O.P. now mentioned in invoice that Ex-showroom cost is Rs.80,806/-. The O.P. has issued valid tax and money receipts observing all formalities and given all accessories with the vehicle in the presence of the complainant. The tax receipts to the above effect inclusion of both vehicle price and accessories i.e. ex-showroom price Rs.58,980/- plus accessories of Rs.21,826/- that is net value amount is Rs.80,806/-. The complainant has alleged against the O.P. before the RTO, Chhatrapur, Ganjam. After receiving the notice from RTO, Chhatrapur and explained all the things with documentary evidence. The alleged difference amount from ex-showroom price of Rs.21,826/- towards accessories charges included in tax invoice regarding the effect which has been signed and received by complainant also present before RTO, Chhatrapur and O.P. also again given clarification on accessories by giving item wise lists of accessories that fitted and given to complainant, which was intentionally hidden and not disclosed by complainant in his written complaint before Hon’ble Forum. After heard from both sides the RTO, Chhatrapur, Ganjam has been pleased to dispose the matter. The complainant has purchased this electric scooter on 10.08.2021, from said date to till date this O.P. is providing all services to the complainant with satisfaction. No single case has been brought to this O.P. by any customer till date regarding selling price and servicing etc. After lapse of about two years, he is raising this type of baseless things having insisted by Sri Siba Prasad Sadangi to extract money from this O.P. Hence the question of refund and litigation charged through stated by complainant is denied by this O.P. Hence this O.P. prayed to dismiss the case.
5. On the date of hearing, the learned counsel of complainant and O.P. in person was present and submitted their arguments. The Commission heard on the point of issues at length from the parties and verified the complaint, written version, evidence on affidavit, written arguments and documents available in the case record minutely. The complainant suffers from non-joinder of necessary party. The Complainant adduced the Annexure 02 which is not disclosing that the amount of Rs.80,806/- was not reflecting as the ex-showroom cost of the scooter, hence Invoice cost was not an ex-showroom cost. The O.P. has issued valid tax and money receipts observing all formalities and given all accessories with the vehicle in the presence of the complainant. The tax receipts to the above effect inclusion of both vehicle price and accessories i.e. ex-showroom price Rs.58,980/- plus accessories of Rs.21,826/- that is net value amount is Rs.80,806/-. Hero Electric Narayani Motors issued invoice No. NM104/21-22 dated 10th August 2021 of Hero Electric E-Bike net value amount Rs.80,806/-. The O.P. has clearly mentioned the total invoice value including accessories after G.S.T. (in Rs.). Hence there is no excess price charged by the O.P. The complainant in the instant case failed to substantiate that, the cost of the accessories was on free of costs and also failed to prove that, the O.P. has charged more than the ex-show room cost to him. Whereas on 11.4.2022 the vehicle price of Optima HS500 ER is Rs.68,060. The alleged difference amount from ex-showroom price of Rs.21,826/- towards accessories charges included in tax invoice regarding the effect which has been signed and received by complainant with O.P. present before RTO, Chhatrapur and the same has been received without objection. In referring to the Annexure Vi (P3) filed by the OP the complainant failed to prove that the invoice which was produced before the R.T.O. Ganjam was false/misleading invoice. The complainant not protested when received the said invoice of accessories on 31.12.2022 during course of hearing before R.T.O. Ganjam. Once a document received without challenge/objection from an Executive Authority deemed as a genuine document. The claim of complainant about Annexure VI of O.P. is baseless and not sustainable in the eye of law.
In view of above factual aspects of the case, the Commission dismissed the complaint summarily. No order as to cost and compensation.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 20.08.2024.
