PER:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant Surjeet Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the allegations that he had purchased one CRETA Sx 1.6 Car Colour white bearing its Registration No. PB46-Z-2474, Chassis No. MALC381UU1M291253 and Engine No. D4FBHM387218 from the opposite parties No.1  and 2 for a sum of Rs. 11,88,374/- vide invoice dated 22.8.2017 duly issued by the opposite party No. 2 under his signature to the complainant. Except the price of the above said car, opposite party No. 2 had received a sum of Rs. 29,973/- as insurance charges, Rs. 1,500/- as registration charges, Rs. 75,967/- as registration charges from the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 has received a sum of Rs. 75,967/- from the complainant as registration charges of the above said car and out of which the opposite party No. 2 has paid a sum of Rs. 64,099/- as Tax vide Form- Receipt TAX made to the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department vide receipt No. SP30817437797926 dated 22.8.2017. Since the date of purchase of the said car, the complainant number of times visited the premises of the office of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 with the request to supply the detail of registration charges of the above said Creta Car of the complainant as the opposite party No. 2 has received a sum of Rs. 75,967/- as registration charges from the complainant and to give the written detail/ receipt of expenditure of registration charges of the above said car, but the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are lingering on the matter under one pretext or the other on lame excuses. One time the opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that he will send the entire detail of expenses of registration charges of the above said car of the complainant by post at his residential address, but till today none of the information has received by the complainant from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and they remained deaf ear since long. The complainant has requested the opposite parties to supply the detail of registration charges of above said Creta Car of the complainant as the opposite party No. 2 has received a sum of Rs. 75,967/- as registration charges from the complainant and to give the written detail/ receipt of expenditure of registration charges of the above said car, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to it and since a day back i.e. 12.8.2019 the opposite parties refused to accept the request of the complainant in the presence of his brother Satpal Singh son of Darshan Singh, resident of village Sangwan, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. The above said acts committed by the opposite parties fall within the ambit of deficiency in services and malpractice. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 75,967/- received by them from the complainant in lieu of issuance of registration certificates by way of supplying valid receipts of every expenses and otherwise the opposite parties may be directed to return back the money which was excess charged by the opposite parties from the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the complainant immediately without any further delay and without any prejudice. The complainant has also prayed Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.  Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant is Ex. C-1, self attested copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of invoice dated 22.8.2017 is Ex. C-3,  Self attested copy of receipt of TAX dated 22.8.2017 is Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of affidavit of Satpal Singh is Ex. C-5.

2        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead the commission and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complaint is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is an abuse of the process of  law and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed, with exemplary cost. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get undue advantage from the opposite parties and the cause harm to the reputation of the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties as alleged in the present complaint by the complainant. The complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention after the period of about 2 years from the date of purchase of car and during such long period, no dispute has been raised by the complainant with the opposite parties regarding alleged excess payment. All the record of the complainant with the opposite parties has already been settled and closed and now after gap of about two years, the complainant is asking for detail of the transactions, which the complainant is not legally entitled to obtain from the opposite parties. True and correct record has already been provided to the complainant by the opposite parties at the time of purchasing of car and the complainant has issued satisfactory note to this respect in favour of opposite party No. 1. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party No. 1 has received Rs. 75,967/- as registration amount, whereas, the opposite parties have paid Rs. 64,099/- as tax to the concerned department and the complainant has asked for balance amount. As per norms of the Govt. when a customer purchase a vehicle more than value of Rs. 10 Lac, advance tax TCS @1% is to be deposited by the customer to the Govt. In the present case also, TCS @1% of the total value of the car was also deposited by the opposite party No. 1 on behalf of the complainant and this fact was very much in the knowledge of the complainant. As such, nothing excess amount as alleged has been charged by the opposite parties from the complainant, as such, present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint is nothing but abuse to process of law. By way of filing the present complaint, the complainant is asking for detail of transactions and recovery of excess amount allegedly received by the opposite parties from the complainant, for which the best remedy available for the complainant is to file recovery suit before the competent court of law and present complaint is not maintainable before this commission and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant had purchased the Creta Car from the opposite party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 11,88,374/- vide invoice dated 22.8.2017. It is also admitted that besides the costs of car, the opposite parties have also received an amount of Rs. 29,973/- as insurance charges, Rs. 1500/- as temporary number charges and another amount of Rs. 75,967/- as registration charges and Rs.  11,883/- as TCS amount as detailed above was charged from the complainant. The amount of Rs. 75,967/- include amount of Rs. 11,883/- as TCS amount. It is matter of record that Rs.64,099/- was paid by opposite parties to the concerned Department for the registration of the car. The complainant never visited the opposite parties at any time and had never asked for such detail. No such assurance was ever given by the opposite parties or by any of the official of the opposite party No. 1 to the complainant. Neither the complainant himself nor with his brother ever visited to the opposite parties. There is no misrepresentation and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. There is no negligence, deficiency in service of opposite parties. The car was purchased by the complainant from the showroom of the opposite parties at Amritsar, where also payment of the car was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties and no cause of action occurred at Tarn Taran, as such, this commission has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complainant is not entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- as claimed for and is not entitled for any other relief.  The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Rajesh Kakaria Ex. OP-1, copy of resolution Ex. OP-2, copy of power of attorney Ex. OP-3, Copy of Invoice Ex. OP-4, Copy of Form 21 Ex. OP-5, Copy of satisfactory note Ex. OP-6, Copy of insurance note Ex. OP-7, Copy of order form Ex. OP-8.

3        The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite parties and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint. It was also pleaded that the concerned manager of opposite parties had also misbehaved with the complainant by saying that if the complainant wants any slip/ record, then he can go back and buy car from some other agency after all the payments which were made by the complainant at the counter of the opposite parties as well as the concerned manager had also deliberately/ intentionally charged extra amount from the complainant as clear from the e-mail sent to crsales@hmail.net. The act committed by the opposite parties towards the complainant pertains to malpractice as well as deficiency in service.  

4        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant had purchased one CRETA Sx 1.6 Car Colour white bearing its Registration No. PB46-Z-2474, Chassis No. MALC381UU1M291253 and Engine No. D4FBHM387218 from the opposite parties No.1  and 2 for a sum of Rs. 11,88,374/- vide invoice (order Form) dated 22.8.2017 Ex. C-3 duly issued by the opposite party No. 2 under his signature to the complainant. he further contended that except the price of the above said car, opposite party No. 2 had received a sum of Rs. 29,973/- as insurance charges, Rs. 1,500/- as registration charges, Rs. 75,967/- as registration charges from the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 has received a sum of Rs. 75,967/- from the complainant as registration charges of the above said car. He further contended that out of which the opposite party No. 2 has paid a sum of Rs. 64,099/- as Tax vide Form- Receipt TAX made to the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department vide receipt No. SP30817437797926 dated 22.8.2017 as per Ex. C-4. Since the date of purchase of the said car, the complainant number of times visited the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 with the request to supply the detail of registration charges of the above said Creta Car of the complainant as the opposite party No. 2 has received a sum of Rs. 75,967/- as registration charges from the complainant and to give the written detail/ receipt of expenditure of registration charges of the above said car, but the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are lingering on the matter under one pretext or the other on lame excuses. He further contended that one time the opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that he will send the entire detail of expenses of registration charges of the above said car of the complainant by post at his residential address, but up today none of the information has received by the complainant from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and they remained deaf ear since long. The complainant has requested the opposite parties to supply the detail of registration charges of above said Creta Car of the complainant as the opposite party No. 2 has received a sum of Rs. 75,967/- as registration charges from the complainant and to give the written detail/ receipt of expenditure of registration charges of the above said car, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to it and since a day back i.e. 12.8.2019 the opposite parties refused to accept the request of the complainant in the presence of his brother Satpal Singh son of Darshan Singh, resident of village Sangwan, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. He also contended that the concerned manager of opposite parties had also misbehaved with the complainant by saying that if the complainant wants any slip/ record, then he can go back and buy car from some other agency after all the payments which were made by the complainant at the counter of the opposite parties as well as the concerned manager had also deliberately/ intentionally charged extra amount from the complainant as clear from the e-mail sent to crsales@hmail.net. The act committed by the opposite parties towards the complainant pertains to malpractice as well as deficiency in service.  and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.

6        Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that the present complaint is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead the commission. No cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties to file the present complaint. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get undue advantage from the opposite parties and the cause harm the reputation of the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties as alleged in the present complaint by the complainant. The complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention after period of about 2 years from the date of purchase of car and during such long period, no dispute has been raised by the complainant with the opposite parties regarding alleged excess payment. All the record of the complainant with the opposite parties has already been settled and closed and now after gap of about two years, the complainant is asking for detail of the transactions, which the complainant is not legally entitled to obtain from the opposite parties. True and correct record has already been provided to the complainant by the opposite parties at the time of purchasing of car and the complainant has issued satisfactory note to this respect in favour of opposite party No. 1. He further contended that the complainant has alleged that the opposite party No. 1 has received Rs. 75,967/- as registration amount, whereas, the opposite parties have paid Rs. 64,099/- as tax to the concerned department and the complainant has asked for balance amount. As per norms of the Govt. when a customer purchase a vehicle more than value of Rs. 10 Lac, advance tax TCS @1% is to be deposited by the customer to the Govt. In the present case also, TCS @1% of the total value of the car was also deposited by the opposite party No. 1 on behalf of the complainant and this fact was very much in the knowledge of the complainant. As such, nothing excess amount as alleged has been charged by the opposite parties from the complainant, as such, present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. He further contended that besides the costs of car, the opposite parties have also received an amount of Rs. 29,973/- as insurance charges, Rs. 1500/- as temporary number charges and another amount of Rs. 75,967/- as registration charges and Rs.  11,883/- as TCS amount as detailed above was charged from the complainant. The amount of Rs. 75,967/- include amount of Rs. 11,883/- as TCS amount. He further contended that it is matter of record that Rs.64,099/- was paid by opposite parties to the concerned Department for the registration of the car. The complainant never visited the opposite parties at any time and had never asked for such detail. No such assurance was ever given by the opposite parties or by any of the official of the opposite party No. 1 to the complainant. Neither the complainant himself nor with his brother ever visited to the opposite parties. There is no negligence, deficiency in service of opposite parties and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.

7        In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Creta Car from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 11,88,374/- vide invoice dated 22.8.2017 Ex. OP-4. In the present case, the main issue between the parties is that whether the opposite parties have received excess amount from the complainant or not. ?. To prove this issue, the complainant has placed on record one document i.e. order form Ex. C-3 on which the opposite parties have shown Rs. 29,973/- as insurance charges, Rs. 1,500/- as Temporary Charges, Rs. 75,967/- as Registration Charges , Rs. 11,883/- as TCS charges. When we calculate the same the total sum comes to Rs. 29973+1500+75967+11883=1,19,323. On Ex. C-3 the opposite parties have given cash discount of Rs. 323/-  as such, the remaining amount as per order form payable comes to Rs. 119323-323=119000.  As per Ex. C-3, the opposite parties have shown the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by cheque and Rs.19,000/- by cash. This shows that the opposite parties have received Rs.1,19,000/- from the complainant.  The complainant has also placed on record another document i.e. challan form vide which the opposite parties have deposited an amount of Rs. 64,099/- with the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department for registration fees of the vehicle. As such, it is established that the opposite parties have deposited Rs. 64,099/- with the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department for registration of vehicle bearing Registration No. PB-Z-2474. The opposite parties in its pleadings also admitted that beside the cost of car,  the opposite parties have also received an amount of Rs. 29,973/- as insurance charges, Rs. 1,500/- as temporary number charges and another amount of Rs. 75,967/- as registration charges and Rs.  11,883/- as TCS amount from the complainant. The opposite parties themselves admitted that amount of Rs. 75,967/- has been received by them as registration charges. But as per Ex. C-4, the opposite parties have deposited only Rs. 64,099/- with the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department for registration of the vehicle in question. In Para No. 3 of the on merits, the opposite parties have taken contradictory plea that the amount of Rs. 75,967/- include amount of Rs.11,883/- as TCS amount. But the Ex. C-3, itself shows that the opposite parties have written amount of RS. 11,883/- as TCS charges and Rs. 75,967/- as registration charges.  The document Ex. C-3 is duly signed by the official of the opposite parties. Moreover, the opposite parties themselves admitted in the written version that they have received Rs. 75,967/- as registration charges and admission is the best evidence either of the parties and it needs not to be proved. The opposite parties have not placed on record any detail which shows that the opposite parties have deposited amount of 75,967/- with the Punjab Motor Vehicle Department. As such, it is proved by the complainant on record that the opposite parties  have received Rs. 11,868/- in excess from the complainant for registration charges and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has signed the satisfactory note to the extent that he has received the vehicle in good condition and that satisfactory note is not with regard to payment in dispute.  The complainant has purchased the vehicle 22.8.2017 and the present complaint has been filed on 19.8.2019 i.e. within two years, as such, the present complaint is well within limitation. Furthermore, this commission has got the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint because in Para No. 10 of the complaint, the complainant has taken the stand that part payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid by him to the opposite parties through cheque bearing No. 041018 bearing account No. 915020024005981 lying in Axis Bank Branch Patti, District Tarn Taran, hence, cause of action arose in District Tarn Taran, consequently, this commission has got the jurisdiction to try and entertain the instant complaint

8        In view of above discussion we allow the present complaint and directed the opposite parties to return Rs. 11,868/- to the complainant. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties unnecessarily for a long time. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.7,500/- ( Rs. Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @  9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room. This complaint could not be decided within prescribed period due to heavy pendency of cases in this commission and COVID-19.