DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 467 of 18.12.2017
Decided on: 24.5.2018
Sudhakshar Kumar aged 41 yrs. S/o Geeta Akshar Kumar R/o H.No.3, Street No.1, Sidhu Colony, Bhadson Road, Patiala 147004.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority Block ‘D’ Mini Sectt. Patiala.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.G.A.Kumar,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Opposite party ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Sudhakshar Kumar, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.
-
Sr. No. | Description | Amount | fee | Total |
-
| Form 35(notice or termination of agreement of hire purchase | -
| -
| -
|
-
| Smart Card fees Total amount (In words)Rs.Two hundred only | -
| -
| -
-
|
-
| Society Fee+Scan Fee @ Rs.20/- | -
| -
| -
|
| | | Grand total | -
|
It is stated that the cost of unwanted smart card in size 2”X3-1/4” shown as Rs.43/,whereas its market price cannot be more than Rs.1/-. Secondly the total of first two columns came to Rs.43/- and not Rs.200/- as indicated therein. It is stated when enquired about the society for which Rs.220/- charged, no satisfactory reply was given by the staff members of the OP.Under Rule 81(10) of C.M.V.Rules,1989, supplied by the OP, total fee for cancellation of hire-purchase agreement is Rs.100/-. In deleting / cancelling the Hire Purchase agreement, from RC, there is no expenditure of Govt.since hefty fee had already been charged for getting the vehicle registered. Thus by getting excess amount from the complainant, the OP has indulged into unfair trade practice, for which it is liable to be costed heavily. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.320/- charged in excess , alongwith penal interest from the date ofdeposit till actual payment; to payRs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses.
On being put to notice, one Sh.Dharamjeet Singh, Clerk put his appearance on 20.2.2018, on behalf of the OP. Thereafter neither written version filed nor any person appeared and ultimately the OP was proceeded against exparte.
On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant, gone through the written arguments filed by him and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The complainant has averred that in response to the application dated 23.10.2017, filed by him, under R.T.I. Act, he received a letter dated 6.11.2017,Ex.C1, from Sectt. Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, wherein it has been stated that, fee for cancellation of hire-purchase agreement is of Rs.420/-, whereas, in Rule No.81(10) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the fee for cancellation of hire-purchase agreement has been mentioned Rs.100/-only.Vide Form- receipto9f Fees, Ex.C2, the OP had charged Rs.200/- out of which Rs.43/- were charged as Smart Card fee but had not disclosed, for what purpose it had charged rest of the amount of Rs.157/-.In this way,the Op had charged Rs.477/- i.e. Rs.320/-+Rs.157/- in excess from him. By charging the said amount of Rs.477/- in excess, the OP has committed deficiency in service. The said averments of the complainant have gone un rebutted as the OP preferred not to appear before this Forum to contest the case, meaning thereby that the OP has nothing to say in its defense.
7. We find force in the said averments of the complainant because in the document Ex.C3, Rs.100/- has been mentioned as fee for cancellation of hire-purchase/lease/hypothecation agreement, whereas in the letter C1, it is mentioned that the OP has been charging Rs.420/-, as fee for cancellation of hire purchase agreement. But no reason whatsoever has been given for charging Rs.420/- instead of Rs.100/-. From the Form-Receipt of fees Ex.C2, it is evident that the OP in total had charged Rs.200/-, out of which it had charged Rs.43/- as smart card fee, but has not explained, for what purpose, rest of the amount of Rs.157/-was charged. The OP by charging excess amount, from the complainant has committed deficiency in service and is thus liable to refund the said amount of Rs.477/- to the complainant.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.477/- to the complainant. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation which is inclusive of litigation expenses. The OP is further directed to comply the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:24.5. 2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
