DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                             C.C.NO. 16 OF 2022

                                                                                                                     Date of Filing  : 13.06.2022

                                                          Date of Order : 28.11.2022

Smt. Suchismita Pattnaik

D/O: Umacharan Pattnaik

AT-Sai Nivas, Peonpada,

PO/PS- Phulbani Town

 DIST- Kandhamal.                                      …………………….. Complainant.

                        Versus.

Proprietor, Bandana Automotive Pvt. Ltd.

Circular Road , Phulbani     

DIST- Kandhamal, Odisha,762104                 …………………….. Opp. Party

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                           Sri Sudhakar Senapothi     - Member.

For the Complainant: Mr.Manoj Kumar Sahoo Advocate & Associates

For O.P.- Mr. S.K.Sahu Adv.

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Sudhakar Senapothi, Member

            Complainant Suchismita Pattnaik has filed this case u/s 35 of the C.P Act 2019 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps for not providing her with money receipts against her purchase of one Activa 6G scooter in spite of repeated approaches and for receiving money to the tune of Rs.1844/- in excess of the actual cost and praying therein for a direction to the OP to return a sum of Rs.1844/-, issue money receipts in details and for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000 and Rs.10,000 towards cost of litigation

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the petitioner purchased one Activa 6G scooter of Honda make from the OP on payment of Rs.94000/-. After payment of the consideration amount the scooter was delivered to the complainant. But the OP did not issue money receipt and even after being demand by the complainant. So he lodged a complaint on 05.06.2022 in the toll free number on line. After lodging of the complaint, the OP on 07.06.2022 called the complainant and gave the receipt. After delivery of the money receipt, it was noticed that the OP has taken a sum of Rs, 1844 in excess over and above the bills issued to her. Even though the complainant asked for the remaining voucher, he denied to issue any voucher for which, he knocked at the doors of this Commission for the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint petition which is discussed in the preceding paragraph.
2. After receipt of notice from this Commission, the O.P appeared through his Advocate and filed written statement. In his written statement, the O.P admitted the fact of receiving the sum of Rs,94000/- and pleaded that it includes cost of the vehicle, expenses of registration and other expenses, TC and tax, insurance E/W, accessories and labour charges. After payment the vehicle was delivered and money receipt was provided to the complainant. The Complainant has raised all his allegation only for the purpose of this case. After receipt of the instruction from his superior. The Op provided necessary information and money receipt to the complainant. He has never taken any excess amount from the complainant and there is no cause of action on the part of the complainant to file this case for which he prays for dismissal of the case with cost.
3. The complainant in support of his case has filed the money receipt   for Rs,94000/- issued by the OP on dtd 27.05.2022, tax invoice dtd.27.05.2022, copy of the deposits made to the Motor vehicle department, copy of the insurance certificate, copy of the two invoices dt.28.05.2022, tax invoice dtd 27.05.2022, copy of the road worthiness certificate in form 22. On the other hand, the OP has filed copy of the tax in voice dt 27.05.2022, copy of the deposit receipt for registration of the vehicle, copy of the tax invoice dt.27.05.2022, copy of the RTI information regarding trade certificate dtd 20.01.2018 issued by RTO, Phulbani, copy of the money receipt dtd 28.05.2022, copy of the tax invoice dtd. 28.05.2022, copy of the money receipt dt. 28.05.2022. Either of the parties has not adduced any oral evidence in support of their case.
4.  The only point for adjudication relating to this case is whether the O.P has taken more amount from the complainant against what is actually due?

Both the parties have relied on the s …documents except three documents filed by the OP. The RTI information obtained by one Manas Ranjan Patra from RTO, Phulbani and two manual receipts bearing serial No.2640 and 2641 dtd 28.05.2022. The money receipts filed by the complainant are as follows,

1. Tax invoice dtd 27.05.2022           Rs.76,256/-
2. Registration fees in total              Rs.   5015/-
3. Insurance premium                      Rs.   5822/-
4. Tax invoice dtd 28.05.2022           Rs.   4200/-
5. Tax invoice dtd 27.05.2022           Rs.    863/-

Rs. 92,156/-

5.  In addition to the money receipt filed by the complainant, the OP has filed two more money receipts bearing No. 2640 and 2641 dt. 28.05.2022 for Rs.600 and Rs.544 respectively. Besides, the OP claims that he has deposited a sum of Rs.700 towards the trade certificate of the vehicle. The excess expenditure as stated by him comes to Rs.1844/-. So as per the calculation and bills filed by the OP the total comes to Rs.94000/-
6. During the course of hearing the Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant  vehemently opposed these two bills bearing Sl.No 2640 and 2641 dtd 28.05.2022  filed by the OP and the payment of Rs.700/- towards trade certificate. On scrutiny of both the receipts, it is seen that even though all other invoices and money receipts have been generated through the computerized billing system, these two bills have been prepared manually in the hand writing of somebody. The money receipt does not contain the seal of the OP and it runs in violation of section 5 (1(b)(d)(h)(i)(k) of the Consumer Protection(general )Rules 2020. The receipt does not contain, the taxable value, the rate of tax, the customer care number or Email Id and serial number of bills are not in consonance of the previous bills issued to the same customer. So, it is crystal clear from the defects in the documents that these documents have been prepared by the OP to patch up his   lacuna    in the transaction. The OP is the authorized dealer of Honda Company and he is expected to provide money receipt by stating the part name of the tax paid on it. The handmade receipt does not contain GSTIN number of the dealer. So, it is very much clear that in order to justify his transaction he has fabricated these documents.
7. The OP has made all sincere attempts to mislead the Commission by filing a copy of the information obtained through RTI where in it has been mentioned that “Trade Certificate fees Rs, 500 per vehicle, tax Rs.200 per vehicle”. Even though the OP has stated that he has deposited the trade Certificate fees in respect of the sold vehicle but he has not filed any receipt showing deposit of the fees with RTO,Phulbani anywhere else towards the trade Certificate and tax of Rs.700/-
8. The OP has made frantic efforts to cheat and mislead the Commission by saying that trade Certificate fee and tax are payable by each and every customer towards the sale of each individual vehicle. The fee for trade certificate is obtained by a dealer from R.T.A. to deal with sale of vehicle cannot be charged on the customers.
9. So, it is clear from the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs that the O.P has filed two fabricated receipts and has made all attempts to conceal the truth which is exposed from the discussion above. I am satisfied that the O.P has taken a sum of Rs.1844/- in excess of the actual price and expenses thereby resorting to unfair trade practice. The O.P is made liable for practicing unfair trade practice, fabricating documents for filing in a judicial proceeding to act as evidence and for misleading the Commission deliberately and willfully and is therefore liable to compensate the petitioner and needs to be punished for fabricating documents for use as evidence in a judicial proceeding and for attempting to mislead the Commission and hence the order.
6698606.  

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P. is liable for practicing unfair trade practice. The OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1844/-(one thousand eight hundred forty four) only to the complainant which has been received in excess from the complainant. The OP shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-(two thousand) only as compensation for practicing unfair trade practice to the complainant. The OP shall pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(three thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant. The order is to be complied with in a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount as ordered shall carry interest@12% P.A from the date of order till it is paid to the complainant.

                                                         Computerized and corrected by me.

         I Agree

      PRESIDENT                                                                     MEMBER

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 28th day of November 2022 in the presence of the parties.

                   PRESIDENT                                                                    MEMBER