1. The case of complainant is that on 21.10.2015 she purchased an Activa 3G (SCV110F) Color – Gray, frame No. ME4JF504JF8251896, Engine No. JF50E82251074 from the O.P. on payment of Rs. 65,000/- vide invoice no. 15INO1768 dated 27.10.2015 which includes the cost of vehicle, insurance charges, Registration Charges, accessories, annual maintainance charges, Teflon and transfer charges and the cost of vehicle is Rs. 52,856/-.  It is alleged that the O.P. has fraudulently taken Rs. 1,628/- towards insurance charges, but deposited only 670/- as insurance premium with National Insurance Co. Ltd. vide insurance policy no. 160000/P&S/2015  0078093 dated 13.11.2015.  Further it is alleged that on being asked to O.P. to deposit all the amount of insurance charges or to refund the excess amount received on 21.10.2015, but the O.P. did not deposited the said amount with the insurance company nor refunded the excess amount and with other allegations,  alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P., complainant has filed this case with a pray to direct the O.P. to refund the excess amount of Rs.958/- alongwith interest 18% p.a. and to pay Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs to him.

2. On the other hand, the O.P. appeared in this case and filed his counter version admitting the sale of the alleged vehicle to the complainant, has denied the allegations of complainant contending that though he had received an amount of Rs. 1,628/- towards insurance charges at the time of delivery of the vehicle, but on the personal approach of the complainant he obtained the third party insurance against the alleged vehicle and the rest amount of Rs. 958/- has been refunded to the complainant by cash.  Further it is contended that he is only the commission agent of one Patel Motors of Jeypore and sales the vehicles on commission basis.  It is also contended that any accident occurred to the vehicle, is not in his knowledge as the complainant never approached him regarding accident of the vehicle, if any occurred.  Further, it is contended that as per Govt. rate, he has taken the registration charges of the vehicle.  Thus denying his liability, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.

3. Complainant has filed certain documents, whereas the O.P. did not choose to file any documents.  Heard from the parties and perused the records and documents available therein.

4. In the present case in hand, it is an admitted fact that the O.P. has delivered the alleged vehicle to the complainant with a sale consideration of Rs. 65,000/- which includes Ex-showroom price, insurance charges, registration charges, common accessories, AMC, Teflon and transfer charges and issued a retail invoice showing the O.P. as sub dealer.  The allegations of complainant is that she paid Rs. 1,628/- towards insurance charges, but the O.P. deposited only Rs. 670/- towards obtaining insurance policy against the alleged vehicle.  Complainant has filed documents like retail invoice issued by him and copy of insurance policy to prove his submissions.  Whereas, the O.P. has contended that on personal approach of the complainant he obtained the third party insurance coverage against the alleged vehicle and refunded the balance amount of Rs. 958/- to the complainant. Inspite of repeated adjournments and opportunities given to the O.P. for submitting the cash payment voucher / receipt, but the O.P. could not produce any such document to prove his contentions.  As such we feel, the O.P. has taken excess amount of Rs. 958/- from the complainant in lieu of obtaining the 1^st party insurance against the vehicle, but has obtained the 3^rd party insurance coverage against the alleged vehicle, so also has not refunded the balance amount of Rs. 958/- to the complainant.

5. Further the allegations of the complainant is that the Govt. approved rate for registration charges of vehicle is 5% of the cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 2,700/-, whereas the O.P. has taken amount of Rs. 4,240/- from him.  Whereas the O.P. has challenged the said versions of complainant.  Inspite of our repeated opportunities given to the complainant for submitting the Govt. rate chart, she could not file any document to that effect.  Further the allegations of complainant to the effect that her vehicle met with an accident and she lodged a complaint with the insurance company, but the insurance company did not entertain her claim stating that since the vehicle is covered under third party insurance coverage, as such they cannot entertain the accidental claim against the vehicle.  Whereas the O.P. vehemently contended that the complainant never visited to him for any accident claim.  Thus, we directed the complainant to produce the complaint lodged with the local P.S. or any complaint lodged with the insurance company.  Inspite of repeated adjournments and opportunities to the complainant for submitting document like copy of F.I.R or any complaint lodged with the insurance company, if any, but the complainant could not produce any document to that effect.  As such we are not inclined to accept the versions of complainant to that effect, having no merit.

6. Further the allegations of complainant is that she has purchased spare parts of the alleged accidental vehicle as per the advise of the O.P., but inspite of our repeated opportunities given to her, she could not produce any retails invoices to that effect, as such we are not inclined to accept the versions of the complainant to the effect that she has purchased the spare parts for Rs. 7,865/- as per the advise of the O.P.

7. As per discussions made above, it is established that the O.P. has taken Rs. 1,628/- towards 1^st party insurance charges against the alleged vehicle but obtained on the 3^rd party insurance coverage only and has taken excess amount of Rs. 958/- only against the insurance charges from the complainant and no other evidence is there to ascertain the genuineness of other submissions of the complainant.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel, the O.P. has taken an amount of Rs. 1,628/- towards insurance charges but obtained the insurance policy against the alleged vehicle for an amount of Rs. 670/- as third party, which clearly evident that the O.P. is involved in the principle of unfair trade practice and not refunding the excess amount of Rs.958/- is also deficiency in service on the part of O.P.  Hence this order.

ORDER

    The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. is herewith directed to refund the excess amount of Rs. 958/- taken from the complainant alongwith 12% per annum from the date of insurance i.e. 14.11.2015 to till payment. Further the O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- costs of litigation to the complainant.  All the directions should be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which, the O.P. is liable to pay Rs. 50/- per day till payment.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3^rd day of September, 2018.

        Issue free copies to the parties concerned.