BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no. 70/2019.
Date of instt. 25.01.2019.
Date of Decision: 26.11.2019
Daya Krishan s/o Jai Narayan R/o Village Badopal, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
Manager Sales, SDB Automobiles, National Highway 10, Birla Mill Sirsa Road, Fatehabad-125050, Authorized Dealer of Royal Enfield Motors,(A unit of Eicher Limited)
..Respondents/OPs.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Argued by: Sh. Inder Singh Sihag, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Raman Sardana, Advocate for OP.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party (hereinafter to be referred as OP) with the averments that on 25.08.2018 he purchased Royal Enfield motorcycle from the OP make Classic 350, CC 350 for an amount of Rs.1,48,049/- and including the insurance policy and other charges the complainant had made total payment of Rs.1,61,235/-. However the OP received an amount of Rs.1,63,400/- from the complainant amounting thereby an amount of Rs.2165/- was received from the complainant in excess of the amount which was payable by him. It is further submitted that when the complainant demanded to refund the above said amount of Rs.2165/- from the OP then the OP gifted a seat cover of the motorcycle and price of the seat cover was told by the OP as Rs.500/- whereas the cost of the seat cover was of Rs.300/- as per the market rate. In this way the OP had received Rs. 2165-300=1865/- in excess from the complainant. The complainant has visited the office of OP several times for refund of the above said amount but all in vain. The complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 29.10.2018 to the OP through his counsel but the notice was not replied by OP nor the above said amount was refunded. It is further submitted that the above said act on the part of OP amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complainant is also entitled for compensation.
2. The complainant has further prayed that the present complaint may be allowed and the OP may be directed for making a payment of Rs.1865/- to him along with at the rate of 24% per annum from 25.08.2018 till the date of realization. The complainant has also prayed for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, the present complaint.
3. Upon served, the OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, concealment of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.
4. In reply, on merits it is submitted that at the time of purchase of motorcycle several queries were raised by the complainant and those queries were duly replied to the complainant by the officials of the company and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in a perfect running condition after charging the real and actual amount and the vehicle was received by the complainant after personally inspecting the same and perusing all the items sought for by the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant was apprised all the terms and conditions of the warranty and other useful information as stipulated in the Owner’s Manual. It is further submitted that the allegations of receiving excess amount from the complainant is totally false and baseless and no excess payment has been received by the OP from the complainant. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to the complainant in the present case and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit as Annexure C1 and the documents as Annexure C-2 to Annexure C-4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure RW-1/A and closed the evidence of OP.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the documents placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the motorcycle make Royal Enfield from OP for an amount of Rs.1,48,049/- and including the insurance policy and other charges a payment of Rs.1,61,235/- was to be made by him. However the OP received an amount of Rs.1,63,400/- from the complainant and thereby an amount of Rs.2165/- was received from the complainant in excess of the amount which was payable by him. Therefore, the complainant requested the OP to refund the above said amount of Rs.2165/- and upon this the OP gifted a seat cover of the motorcycle and it was told by the OP that the cost of seat cover is Rs.500/- and whereas the cost of seat cover was just Rs.300/- as per the market rate. Therefore, in this way the OP had received Rs.2165-300= 1865/- in excess from the complainant. It is further the case of the complainant that he visited the office of OP several times for refund of the said amount but all in vain. The complainant also got issued a legal notice to the OP but the same was not replied by the OP nor the said amount was refunded. The above said act on the part of OP amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.1865/- alongwith compensation and litigation charges from the OP. on the other hand it is the case of the OP that the vehicle in question was sold to the complainant after charging the real and actual amount and no excess amount was received from the complainant. It has been denied that an amount of Rs.2165/- was received by the OP from the complainant in excess of the real price of the vehicle in question.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the only issue to be decided by this Forum is as to whether an excess amount of Rs.1865/- from the actual amount of the vehicle in question was received by the OP from the complainant. In support of his contention that in place of Rs.1,61,235/-, the OP received from the complainant an amount of Rs.1,63,400/- although no document has been placed on record yet we are of the considered opinion that a person for a small amount of Rs.1865/- will not knock the door of the Court. Therefore, the contention of the complainant cannot be discarded until and unless a contrary evidence is not produced by the OP. The complainant for Redressal of his over grievance had also got issued legal notice to the OP but the OP did not bother to reply the same. We are therefore the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to him. The present complaint is accordingly allowed and the OP is directed for making a payment of Rs.1865/- to the complainant. The OP is further directed for making a payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation and litigation charges. The present order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 8% per annum for the default period. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt.26.11.2019.
(Jasvinder Singh) (Raghbir Singh)
Member President DCDRF, Fatehabad.
