DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.460/2014
Shri Anil Kumar (since deceased)
through his LRs.
- Smt. Dayawati - wife
- Shri Piyush Bharti - son
- Shri Ankit Bharti - son
All R/o
C/85, Mohammad Pur, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi-110066. ….Complainant
Versus
M/s Rana Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Rekhi House, A-2/7, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029.
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 03.12.2014 Date of Order : 10.01.2018
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Maruti Wagon-R, LXI car from the OP on 14.08.2014 and the OP had charged Rs. 6000/- as handling charge which was illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that as per the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 8408/2011, complainant requested the OP to refund Rs. 6000/- but OP gave different version and stated that the case is still in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and final decision is yet to come. It is stated that the dealers of different car companies give an undertaking to the Government that they will not charge fee like handling charges. Hence, it is an unfair trade practice on behalf of the OP. Complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OP to refund an amount of Rs.6,000/- alongwith interest and to pay Rs.50,000/-as mental agony and harassment charges and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges and to stop this type of unfair trade practice adopted by all car dealers.
OP in its reply has inter-alia stated that the complainant has not gone through full text of judgment filed by the complainant which is self explanatory and in para-10 of the judgment the Hon’ble Court has opined “If the vehicle dealers providing any extra in terms of service, goods, fuel etc. to the purchasers and the purchasers agree to pay therefore, in the absence of any law to control the same, this Court cannot issue any direction with respect thereto.” Therefore, in view of the judgment relied upon by the complainant and in the facts and circumstances of the complaint, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has not filed rejoinder and affidavit in evidence.
Affidavit of Sh. Rana H.S. Rekhi, Director of OP has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the OP.
We have heard the complainant and counsel for the OP and have also gone through the file.
Complainant died on 26.05.2016 and his LRs were substituted on 01.11.2017. Complainant filed the Debit Note dated 14.08.2014 wherein the handling charges were charged for an amount of Rs.6,000/-. We mark it as Annexure-A for the purposes of identification.
It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the car from the OP and paid Rs. 6,000/- as handling charges vide Annexure-A. The OP in its written statement has also accepted that they had charged a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards handling charges.
The complainant as well as the OP relied upon the judgment titled as C.Rajaram, Advocate & Anr. vs. GNCT of Delhi & Ors. W.P.(C) No.8408/2011 decided on 20.11.2012.
The petition filed in public interest averred that the various authorized dealers in Delhi impleaded as OPs had sold the vehicles in violation of instructions/ guidelines of the Govt. Following undertakings on behalf of the car dealers were there on the record :-
“1. We will not charge more than the price of the vehicle and registration charges and road tax.
- We will not charge any other charges/ fee charges/ fee like handling charges/ service charges.”
The Hon’ble High Court has observed as under:-
The undertakings aforesaid obtained by the respondents No. 1 & 2 Licensing Authority from the dealers though being widely worded, cannot come in the way of the dealers charging the extras for extra services rendered in connection with the sale and which the respondents No. 1& 2 are not empowered to control/ regulate. Notice may be taken of the fact that in today’s day of aggressive marketing of vehicles and multifarious choices available to the purchasers/ consumers, the vehicles dealers giving discounts are not unknown (as also evident from the respondents No. 1 & 2 making a provision (supra) to that effect) and it is generally seen that the purchasers of vehicles are in a bargaining position with the dealers. If the vehicle dealers are providing any extras in terms of services, goods, fuel etc. to the purchasers and the purchasers agree to pay therefor, in the absence of any law to control the same, this Court cannot issue any direction with respect thereto.
In view of the above judgment, it is clear that the OP cannot charge the extra amount from the customers without their consent. In the present case, OP did not take the consent of the complainant for charging Rs. 6,000/- extra towards handling charges. Thus, in our considered opinion, it amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
Keeping in view the facts discussed hereinabove, we allow this complaint and direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to the LRs of the complainant from the date of purchase of the vehicle till the date of realization. OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. one thousand only) for harassment and mental agony undergone by the Complainant including the cost of the litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.6,000/- from the date of purchase of the vehicle till realization.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 10.01.2018.
