DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.627 of 2010
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 11.11.2010
DATE OF ORDER: -19.01.2017
Shri Jai Raj Bidlan son of Shri Sunder Lal Bidlan, resident of House No. 2289, Sector 13, HUDA. Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
Raghu Hyundai, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani through its proprietor Dr. Ishwar Gupta.
………….. Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Present:- Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the OP charged a sum of Rs. 3,64,000/- from the complainant vide receipt no. 2053 dated 29.03.2010 for the car purchased by the complainant against the said amount received by the OP from the complainant, the complainant delivered the car vide sale certificate dated 30.03.2010 and issued a retail invoice dated 30.03.2010 for a sum of Rs. 3,50,575/-. It is alleged that as such the OP has charged an excess amount of Rs. 14,000/- from the complainant, which the OP liable to pay alongwith interest and compensation. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OP he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, he has to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OP filed written statement alleging therein that the value of car was Rs. 3,50,575/- and remaining amount paid by the complainant to the respondent was towards insurance, extended warranty, stereo, speakers and accessories etc. It is submitted that the corporate bonus of Rs. 4000/- has already been paid to the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite party has placed on record Annexure R1 to Annexure R-6 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the OP charged a sum of Rs. 3,64,000/- from the complainant vide receipt no. 2053 dated 29.03.2010 Annexure C-7 for the car purchased by the complainant against the said amount received by the OP from the complainant, the complainant delivered the car vide sale certificate dated 30.03.2010 Annexure C-5 and issued a retail invoice dated 30.03.2010 Annexure C-4 for a sum of Rs. 3,50,575/-. As such the OP has charged an excess amount of Rs. 14,000/- from the complainant, which the OP liable to pay alongwith interest and compensation.
7. Learned counsel for OP reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the statement of account of the complainant is Annexure R-6. A sum of Rs. 1975/- has been charged for extended warranty and a sum of Rs 9224/- for insurance cover of the car and another amounts were charged as the detail given in the statement of account Annexure R-6. He further submitted that the exchange bonus of Rs. 4,000/- was paid to the complainant on 01.08.2011. The said entry of Rs. 4,000/- has been mentioned at serial No. 26 in the account statement. The cover note No. 1090015104 was issued to the complainant on 29.03.2010. He submitted that as such no excess amount has been charged by the OP from the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is false and baseless.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The material facts of the case regarding the cost of the car and payment by the complainant are not in dispute. The OP has elaborated the details of the amount received under the various heads from the complainant like insurance cover, extended warranty and accessories etc. and has made an effort to justify the receipt of Rs. 3,64,000/-. As per the contention of the OP a sum of Rs. 4,000/- has been paid on account of exchange bonus to the complainant on 01.08.2011, after the filing of the present complaint. It amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The OP is supposed to give the details of the charges and to issue the bill to the complainant for each and every penny received from the complainant to the satisfaction of the customer. We have failed to understand why the exchanged bonus of Rs. 4,000/- has been paid by the complainant on 01.08.2011 after about one year and 7 months from the date of the purchase of the car by the complainant. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to pay interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum on the exchange bonus of Rs. 4,000/- from the date of deposit till the date of payment to the complainant. The OP is also further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the complainant. The OP is directed to be careful in future and not to repeat such unfair trade practice. The OP is directed to pay the said amount to the complainant through demand draft drawn drawn in his favour and the same be sent to his address as given in the complaint through registered post within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 19.01.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member.
