Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he purchased a new Mahindra Thar Crde bearing RC No.PB-10FT-994 on 27.05.2016 from Opposite Party No.2 and at that time, the Opposite Party No.2 also got insured the same vehicle from Opposite Party No.1 Insurance company and charged Rs.33,125/-. Lateron, when the complainant received the policy documents, he came to know that Opposite Party No.2 charged excess amount i.e. Rs.33,125/- instead of 29,475/- and in this way, Opposite Party No.2 has charged Rs.3,650/- in excess and in this way, the Opposite Parties have committed Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency in service. The complainant made requests to the Opposite Parties and asked for the reasons of excess charging, but to no affect and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,650/- alongwith interest and also to pay of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant besides costs of litigation amounting to Rs.22,000/- and also to pay any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit.
3. Initially, none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and was proceeded against exparte, but lateron at the stage of evidence, with the consent of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.2 was allowed to joint the proceedings at that stage i.e. at the stage of evidence of the Opposite Party No.2.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainants tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA and CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.2 also tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/1 and OP2/2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Party No.2 have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written statement respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of the parties. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a new Mahindra Thar Crde bearing RC No.PB-10FT-994 on 27.05.2016 from Opposite Party No.2 and at that time, the Opposite Party No.2 also got insured the same vehicle from Opposite Party No.1 Insurance company and charged Rs.33,125/-. Lateron, when the complainant received the policy documents, he came to know that the Opposite Parties charged excess amount i.e. Rs.33,125/- instead of 29,475/- and in this way, Opposite Party No.2 has charged Rs.3,650/- in excess. Copy of the proposal Ex.C5 clearly establish that the Opposite Party No.1 issued receipt of Rs.33,125/- by charging the said amount from the complainant, but however, the policy document Ex.C6 shows that the actual charges of insurance are Rs.29,475/-, but on the other hand, though the representative appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 tried to clear their stand for excess charge, but we are not agree with the aforesaid contention of the representative of the Opposite Party No.2. Hence, we hold that there is certainly Unfair Trade Practice on the part of Opposite Party No.2 who has charged the excess amount on account of insurance while selling the new car in question to the complainant and we allow the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 only who has charged the excess amount from the complainant.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the Complainant against Opposite Party No.2 and direct Opposite Party No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.3,650/- (Rupees three thousands six hundred fifty only) to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 28.08.2017 till its actual realization. Opposite Party No.2 is also directed to pay the lump sum compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (five thousands only) on account of harassment, mental tension and litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No.2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
9. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint today i.e.23.05.2022 at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Dated: 23.05.2022.
