DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 27.01.2024.
CC/36/2024
K.C.Babu, Kallarakkal House, - Complainant
Aradhana Nagar, Mannarkkad-678 582.
(By Adv.Vince.M.J)
VS
Shameer, Proprietor, Sevana Kendram, -Opposite Party
Opp.Civil Station, Mannarkkad-678 582.
(Ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party collected service charges for cancellation of hire purchase agreement of his vehicle in excess of what is prescribed by the Government for such services. The opposite party collected Rs.130/- as fees and Rs.120/- as service charges for online cancellation of Hire purchase agreement. According to the complainant, the charges payable for such service is only Rs.40/- apart from scanning charges of Rs.3/- per page. Hence, this complaint is filed seeking refund of excess of Rs.80/- collected along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party but he did not enter appearance. Hence, his name was called in open court and was set ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 and A2 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party.
4. Ext.A2 is the Government Order issued by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of Kerala prescribing the fees that can be charged for various services offered by Akshaya Centres.
5. The main argument put forth by the complainant based on Ext.A2 is that for RTO related services is Rs.340+Rs.3 (scan/print) plus transaction charges. However, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the opposite party is an Akshaya Centre established as per the direction of Government of Kerala. Further, the complainant had submitted a letter on 20.03.2024 wherein it has been mentioned that the said opposite party is working without any licence from the municipality. Hence, it is clear that the opposite party is not an Akshaya Centre as such centre cannot function without sanction from Municipality and hence, the charges prescribed for Akshaya Centre are not applicable to the opposite party.
Further, it is not clear whether the opposite party is a centre established under any other scheme of Government of Kerala/Government of India and any specific fee structure is specified for such centres. Hence, it is impossible for this Commission to reach any conclusion as to whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party regarding the amount of fee/charges collected from the complainant.
6. However, the opposite party has issued the receipt/Bill (Ext.A1) not in conformity with Section (5) of Consumer Protection (General) Rule, 2020 which amounts to unfair trade practice.
7. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed in part ordering the following reliefs;
1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for unfair trade practice.
2. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- for legal expenses.
Pronounced in open court on this the 30th day of September, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Payment receipt of fees of Rs.130/- and Rs.120 as service charge to the Akshaya Centre.
Exts.A2: Government Order dated 09.05.2018.
Documents marked from the side of the opposite party:Nil
Document marked from the side of Court: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 2,000/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
