Delhi

East Delhi

CC/239/2015

SUSHIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SEKHANAD ELEC. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 239/15

 

Shri Sushil Narain

S/o Shri Laxmi Narain

R/o F-146, Main Market

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi                                                                         ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Shekhawat Electronics Private Limited

ZEDEX Nissan

89 FIE Patparganj

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Nissan Motors India Private Limited

ASV Ramana Towers

37 & 38, Venkatnarayana Road

T. Nagar – 600017

Chennai                                                                                               ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 07.04.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 06.12.2017

Judgment Passed on: 07.12.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by the complainant,         Shri Sushil Narain, against Shekhawat Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Nissan Motors India Private Limited (OP-2) with allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

2.         Facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Nissan Vehicle make “Sunny” from Shekhawat Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) on 11.09.2013.  The complainant was charged a sum of Rs. 78,428/- for the registration amount (actual charges as Transport Authority receipt were Rs. 76,884/-), Rs. 30,806/- for the insurance amount (actual insurance premium was Rs. 27,644/-).  Thus, the complainant had been charged an extra amount of Rs. 4,700/- (Rs. 1,544/- + Rs. 3,162/-) and Rs. 8,000/- under the head of warehouse. 

            It was submitted that when after initial 1000 kms., the vehicle was sent for first service to OP-1, silence of the vehicle was found to be damaged after service, which was brought to the notice of OP-1 immediately, who assured the complainant that the same will be repaired at the time of next visit. 

            On 17.02.2014, the vehicle was picked up by one Mr. Devinder of OP-1 for second service.  The complainant received a call on the same day from   OP-1 with an attempt to sell some extra attachments with service, but with a cost, which was refused by the complainant.  The complainant reminded OP-1 for the repair of silencer.  In the evening, the complainant received the vehicle unattended.  This fact was acknowledged by Mr. Devinder of OP-1.  OP-1 did not respond the representations of the complainant.

            It was further stated that OP-1 deliberately not only overcharged but also charged the amount without any justification.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund the extra amount charged by them; Rs. 5,00,000/- compensation and cost of litigation.

            Complainant has annexed printout of email dated 05.04.2014, copy of service report/invoice dated 17.02.2014, copy of letter dated 19.02.2014 and copy of invoices alongwith complaint.         

3.         In the reply, filed on behalf of OP-1, they have stated that they have charged a sum of Rs. 1544/- against services given by the company on behalf of complainant for registration of vehicle in transport authority.  This amount was also included in sales contract dated 02.09.2013 alongwith registration amount, which was duly signed by the complainant.  They have stated that the insurance premium amount was free of cost, given to the complainant against Rs. 1/- only, which was also mentioned in sales contract dated 02.09.2013.  Warehouse charges of Rs. 8,000/- were also agreed by the complainant as per sales contract.  It was stated that there was a complaint of silencer noise, not of damaged silencer.  OP-1 issued an apology letter to the complainant and requested to send the vehicle to the workshop else they can arrange pick and drop facility on free of cost basis.  It was further stated that the total cost of car was Rs. 9,17,098/- as agreed by the complainant in order booking form dated 02.09.2013, but he had paid Rs. 5,000/- on 25.10.2012, Rs. 5,00,000/- on 02.09.2013, Rs. 3,00,000/- on 05.09.2013 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 10.09.13 making a total of Rs. 9,05,000/- instead of Rs. 9,17,098/-.  OP-1 have requested for directions to complainant to pay Rs. 16,301/- alongwith 21% interest (Rs. 12,098/- of balance amount and Rs. 4,203/- against service invoice).  Other facts have also been denied.

            Sales contract dated 02.09.2013 as Annexure-A, job card dated 17.02.2014 as Annexure-B have been annexed with the reply of OP-1

            OP-2 filed their reply upon service of the summon in the present complaint, where they raised several pleas in their defence such as they were concerned with marketing of the vehicle.  They had no role in sale or after sale service.  The entire dispute pertains to OP-1 and they have no liability towards the complainant.  Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied.

            OP have annexed copy of dealer agreement between OP-1 and OP-2 as Annexure A-1, copy of vehicle history as Annexure A-2, copy of warranty as Annexure A-3 with the reply.       

4.         In rejoinder to the WS filed on behalf of OPs the complainant denied all the contents of the reply and reiterated the contents of the complaint. 

5.         Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where he has examined himself and deposed on oath the contents of the complaint.

            Shri Arun Sharma was examined on behalf of OP-1 who has also reiterated the contents of their reply and has relied on Annexures, annexed with their reply.

            Ms. Reshma Ravindra, Manager-Legal was examined on behalf of OP-2 who too has reiterated the contents of their reply and has relied on Annexure annexed with their reply.

6.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant has alleged that OP-1 has charged excess amount on account of registration with transport authority, insurance and warehouse charges. 

            Now, deciding on point of charges for registration with transport authorities, as per Annexure-A, Rs. 78,428/- have been charged on account of registration and road tax, but according to receipt issued by transport department, GNCT, they are Rs. 76,884/-.  Thus, OP has charged Rs. 1,644/- in excess from the complainant.

            Again from Annexure-A, annexed with the reply on behalf of OP-1, which is the customer order booking form, where in the head corresponding to Insurance, it is written “FOC-Rs. @ 1 + 0% dep.”  Thus, OP cannot be held liable for overcharging on account of premium, when insurance is free of cost and the complainant has paid Rs. 1/- only on account of premium. 

            Third point to be decided is the warehouse charges of Rs. 8,000/- charged by OP.  OP has stated that the complainant had agreed to pay warehouse charges as per sales contract dated 02.09.2013, but the same is in contravention with the notification issued by transport Department of GNCTD, where it has been stated that all dealers of MV in NCT of Delhi are hereby directed to ensure the compliance of MV Act, 1988, Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 and Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules 1993 as well as terms and conditions of Trade Certificate and Empowerment of self registering dealers “All intending buyers of vehicles in NCT of Delhi are also advised not to pay any logistic/handling/miscellaneous charges etc.”

            Further, the complainant has made booking on 02.09.2013 and invoice is of 05.09.2013, the amount of Rs. 8,000/- for warehouse, charged by OP-1 is unjustified and amounts to unfair trade practice.  As OP-2 is the manufacturer and no manufacturing defect has been alleged against them, no liability can be fastened on to them.  Hence, we direct OP-1 to refund Rs. 9,544/- (Rs. 1,544/- + Rs. 8,000) alongwith 9% interest from the date of payment received i.e. 05.09.2013.  We also award compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as it will act as a deterrent on OP-1. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member

           

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President