DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

North 24 Pgs., BARASAT

C.C. No./94/2018

Date of Filing                                   Date of Admission               Date of Disposal

  28.02.2018                                                07.03.2018                                08.01.2024

P R E S E N T                                     :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.

                                                :- Sri.  Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.

JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER

            Complainant above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid Opposite Party U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for direction to the Opposite Party to

Refund the excess amount to him along with interest at the market rate and extra amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation, cost of the case and other reliefs.

            He alleged in the petition of complaint that he is a consumer. He has paid Rs. 4,93,367/- (Rs. 442139 as ex-showroom price of car, Rs. 33,000/- for registration and Rs. 17128/- for insurance) to the O.P for TATA Tiago exem 1.2 petrol car in the month of June 2017 and July 2017 by NEFT and Finance mode. In the price list it was clearly mentioned that prices and taxes ruling at the time of delivery will be applicable irrespective of when the order was booked. Same was confirmed by the sales representative Mr. Sankar Das who attend the Complainant. The car was delivered to the Complainant on 28/07/2017 and from the beginning of July ex-showroom price of the same model has been fixed as Rs. 422163/- . One receipt relating to Tax Token was issued for Rs. 27,290/- and another receipt was issued relating to insurance for the amount of Rs. 15824/-. O.P took extra amount of Rs. 7014 against registration and insurance till the date of filing of this complaint O.P did not give smart card of the aforesaid newly registered car to the Complainant.

O.P appeared in this case and filed W/V and denied the entire allegations. He further contended that under legal obligation Complainant is bound to prove the complaint by placing documentary evidence. In the month of June 2017 Complainant booked the car in question with some down-payment and further the Complainant exchanged the old car and provided post dated cheque for processing loan from Tata Motors Finance Ltd. at the relevant point of time Complainant requested the O.P to make the invoice in the month of June 2017 so that he can avoid assumed higher taxation under GST to save money at that relevant point of time. On that time O.P company intimated the Complainant that without full payment company cannot issue any invoice. On good faith O.P company raised the said invoice as per request of the Complainant. After applicability of GST with effect from 01/07/2017 the Complainant rushed to the office of O.P and asked for refund of certain amount as the value of the said car got reduced. His aforesaid demand was illegal. To keep the goodwill of the company and treating the Complainant as valued customer O.P gave additional discount amounting to Rs. 9830/-. 

Regarding the alleged extra amount O.P stated that it is hard truth that there are many other expenses required to be paid like representative fees, fuel cost, driver cost and miscellaneous expenses for getting the registration papers as well as insurance papers and for all these cost O.P was unable to provide any receipt. He prayed for dismissal of the case.

Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./

: :  2  : :

C.C. No./94/2018

TRIAL

            During Trial Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. O.P filed questionnaire. Complainant files answer. O.P filed a petition praying for treating the W/V as examination-in-chief on 17/05/2021. Complainant filed questionnaire on 24/0/2022. O.P filed answer.

DOCUMENTS

            At the time of filing this complaint Complainant filed the following documents:-

1. Proforma invoice dated NIL …..1 sheet….xerox.
2. Sales invoice dated 30/06/2017…..1 sheet….xerox.
3. Receipt of State Transport Department dated 26/07/2017…..1 sheet….xerox.
4. Insurance Policy dated 15/07/2017…..1 sheet….xerox.
5. Delivery check list dated 28/07/2017…..1 sheet….xerox.
6. Track Report.

O.P filed the following documents with his BNA:-

i)          Reply by O.P to the Complainant dated 30/11/2017…..1 sheet….xerox.

ii)         Money receipt dated 28/07/2017 in respect of Rs. 9830/-…..1 sheet….xerox.

iii)        Certificate dated 15/07/2017…..1 sheet….xerox.

iv)        Order booking form dated 16/06/2017…..1 sheet….xerox.

BNA

            Complainant filed BNA. O.P filed BNA.

Decisions with Reasons:-

We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and O.P at length.

We have carefully gone through the aforesaid documents, stated earlier. It is the admitted position that Complainant has purchased one four wheeler car from the O.P and at the time of purchasing the said car he has returned his old car in favour of the O.P. O.P deducted the amount of the old car and took the remaining amount of the new car. Complainant alleged in the petition of complaint that he booked the said car in the month of June 2017 and he took the delivery of the car on 28/07/2017. He further stated that in the month of July Ex-showroom price of the vehicle was Rs. 4,22,163/- but O.P took Rs. 4,42,139/-. He further alleged that O.P took Rs. 17,128/- as cost of Insurance Policy of the said vehicle. O.P also took Rs. 33,000/- as cost of Registration and Road Taxes. But O.P gave receipt in respect of registration amounting to Rs. 27,290/- and insurance charges amounting to Rs. 15,824/-. Accordingly O.P took excess amount of Rs. 7,014/-. He prayed for necessary direction.

On perusal of W/V we find that O.P stated that application of GST was started from 01/07/2017. As the GST was started from 1^st July, 2017 so O.P had no option to disobey the Government norms and he charged the necessary taxes at the time of delivery of the said vehicle. At the time of filing of this complaint Complainant did not file any document in support of the fact that at the time of booking of the aforesaid car value of the car was Rs. 4,22,163/- including the tax applicable on that time. It is the duty of the Complainant to prove every inches of his allegation which he leveled against the O.P. So, it was the duty of the Complainant to establish that at the time of booking of the said car its value was Rs. 4,22,163/- including all taxes. Complainant did not discharge the same.

I find from the documents i.e. tax invoice, submitted by O.P that O.P mentioned the value of the said car amounting to Rs. 3,86,147.60/- after giving the concession amounting to Rs. 749.59/-. Tax was included amounting to Rs. 55,991.40/-.

So, it is clear before us that O.P prepared the sales invoice amounting to Rs. 4,42,139/- after inclusion of tax i.e. GST which was started on and from 1^st July, 2017. Over the said document Complainant put his signature. On that time Complainant did not raise any objection over the said document. So it is clear before us that Complainant accepted the aforesaid price at the time of preparation of said invoice in connection with aforesaid vehicle which was purchased by the Complainant.

Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./

: :  3  : :

C.C. No./94/2018

On perusal of the document dated 15/07/2017 filed by the O.P with the BNA we find that Complainant stated therein that otherwise no complaint against the O.P regarding sale price and he is totally satisfied with the car and the dealership. We find that Complainant alleged this complaint before this Commission on 28/02/2018. As the Complainant at the time of preparation of tax invoice did not lodged any objection and on 15/07/2017 he made declaration that he is satisfied with the sale price of aforesaid car. So we find that allegation regarding sale price does not bears any merit.

Complainant further alleged that O.P took Rs. 33,000/- regarding registration and road tax and Rs. 17,128/- for the purpose of insurance.

On perusal of receipt issued by STA Department, Barrackpore, ARTO dated 26/07/2017 we find that they issued one receipt in respect of 27,290/-. It is admitted position that STA, Barrackpore, ARTO did not take any other money except the aforesaid money for which the aforesaid receipt was issued. O.P stated in his W/V that there were many other expenses which like representative fees, fuel cost, driver cost, miscellaneous departmental expenses were paid for getting the registration papers as well as insurance papers. O.P in his reply against questionnaires stated that they paid fuel expenses amounting to Rs. 500/-, driver expense amounting Rs. 300/-, HSRP charges amounting to Rs. 560/-, Vendor/Agent service charges amounting Rs. 1350/-, parking charges Rs. 50/- and under the table expenses at RTO office amounting Rs. 3,000/-. But O.P did not state the aforesaid figures in his W/V even he did not file any supported documents in respect of aforesaid expenditure. O.P stated in the reply “under the table expenses at RTO office”. Said expenses not yet been explained at the time of argument.

It was the duty of the O.P to establish the aforesaid expenses by sufficient documentary evidence but he did not do so. Accordingly we find that the explanation which submitted by the O.P in his W/V as well as reply against questionnaires are not acceptable in the eye of law. Accordingly we are of the firm view that aforesaid expenditure of Rs. 7,014/- which has explained by the O.P is not accepted. We have stated earlier that O.P took Rs. 33,000/- and Rs. 17,128/- i.e. in total Rs. 50,128/- from the Complainant for arrangement of registration certificate of the vehicle, road tax of the vehicle and insurance policy of the vehicle i.e. in total Rs. 50,128/-. We also find that O.P provided receipt relating to registration and road tax of the aforesaid vehicle issued by State Transport Department of Barrackpore, ARTO dated 20/07/2017 amounting to Rs. 27,290/-. O.P also provided money receipt in respect of insurance policy amounting to Rs. 15,824/-. O.P did not provide any other money receipt in respect of arrangement of registration and insurance policy of the aforesaid car. So we find that O.P could not produce any money receipt for the amount of Rs. i.e. 7014/-. Accordingly we find that O.P could not justify as to how he took aforesaid amount of Rs. 7,014/- from the Complainant.

On perusal of record we find that Complainant is the consumer  and O.P is the service provider.

Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant has able to established his grievance in part by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to reliefs as per his prayer.

In the result, present case succeeds in part. 

Hence,

It is Ordered:-

That present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P with cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be paid by O.P in favour of the Complainant.

O.P is directed to refund Rs. 7,014/- in favour of the Complainant within 45 days from this day failing which aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from this date to till the date of actual payment.

O.P is directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the Complainant for his harassment, mental pain and agony within 45 days from this date failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.

Dictated and Corrected by me

President

Member                                                                                                        President