Delhi

North East

CC/255/2018

Mr. Subodh Kant Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajindra Honda - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.255/18

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mr. Subodh Kant Rana S/o ShriMahender Singh Rana R/o H.No. 50, Old KardamPuri, Shahdara, Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.       3.	Rajindra Honda Through its Prop/Director A-17, DSIDC Industrial Complex, GT Road, Jhilmil, Delhi 110095   Idemitsu Lube India Pvt. Ltd., 63, 6th Floor, EROS Corporate Tower, Nehru Place New Delhi 110019   Idemitsu Lube India Pvt. Ltd., N-31, Additional Patalganga MIDC, KhalapurTalukaPanvelDistt. Delhi	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:     DATE OF ORDER  :

13.12.2018 11.05.2023 07.07.2023

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 18.03.2018, Complainant had purchased a motor cycle bearing No. DL-5S-BP-7070 from Opposite Party No. 1. On 31.03.2018, at the time of fourth service, the Complainant changed the engine oil of the vehicle for which the company charges Rs. 325/-. The Complainant had paid the said amount. But the actual rate of the engine oil is Rs. 299/- including the taxes and the officials of the company cheated the Complainant intentionally and deliberately. After that Complainant had objected the same and officials of the company used unparliamentarily words to him. It is stated by the Complainant that the act and action of the officials of the company is highly illegally and unlawful. It is further stated that Complainant gave written complaint to the police and higher authorities of the Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to refund the extra charges taken by the Opposite Party, to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of mental harassment along with interest @ 24 % p.a. and Rs. 21,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. It is stated that the Opposite Parties always provided prompt and efficient services to the Complainant and this fact is even not denied by the Complainant. It is stated that the motorcycle had been regularly serviced by the Opposite Parties and if there was any problem, the same had been instantly rectified with the due satisfaction of the Complainant. Hence, the present complaint is liable to dismissed.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3

3. Opposite Party No. 2 and 3contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated that the present complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant had failed to disclose essential components of the complaint. It is stated that the Complainant had purchased motorcycle bearing no. DL 5S BP 7070 from Opposite Party No. 1 and also raised a complaint against Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant had no allegations and dispute against the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3.Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filedseparate rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Partieswherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Partiesand has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.
6. However, after filing the written statement none has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Hence, Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.08.2022 and 25.05.2022 respectively.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant and have also perused the file. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties for addressing the arguments despite grant of the opportunities.
8. The case of the Complainant as revealedfrom the complaint and evidence filed by way of affidavit is that he has purchased the motorcycle on 18.03.2018 from Opposite Party No. 1. It is further revealed from the case of the Complainant that on 31.03.2018 he went to the Opposite Party No. 1 for fourth service of the motorcycle when the engine oil was changed and he was charged Rs. 325/- whereas the actual price of the engine oil was Rs. 299/-. It appears that the Complainant has wrongly mentioned the date of fourth service as 31.03.2018 as the fourth service of the motorcycleis not possible after 13 days of purchase of motorcycle. The perusal of file further shows that the Complainant has filed jobcard no. 28 dated 31.10.2018 this jobcard was issued at the time offourth service when the engine oil in question was changed. Therefore, from the material on record we take the date of fourth service i.e. date of alleged incident as 31.10.2018 instead of 31.03.2018 as mentioned by the Complainant in his affidavit and complaint.
9. The case of the Complainant is that at the time of fourth service he was charged Rs. 325/- for changing the engine oil. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the copy of the jobcard no. 28 dated 31.10.2018. This job card mentions about the fourth free service and change of engine oil. For thisRs. 325/- were paid by the Complainant to Opposite Party No. 1. The Complainant has filed photocopy of label of the packing of the engine oil which depicts the MRP of engine oil as Rs. 299/- which is inclusion of all taxes. Further, the perusal of the jobcard referred above shows that no GST,sur-charged etc. has been shown in the jobcard/bill no. 28 dated 31.10.2018.Therefore, it is clear that the Opposite Party No. 1 has charged Rs. 325/- from the Complainant whereas the price of the engine oil was Rs. 299/- (inclusion of all taxes). There is no evidence in rebuttal to the evidence of the Complainant. Therefore, we hold that the Opposite Party No. 1 has charged Rs. 26/- extra from the Complainant. Therefore, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No. 1 shall pay Rs. 26/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. form the date of filing the complaint till recovery. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case a compensation (on account of mental harassment and litigation charges) of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded to the Complainant which shall be paid by Opposite Party No. 1 along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)