Haryana

StateCommission

A/746/2019

L.R.AUTOMOBILES - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHIV KUMAR JINDAL AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL POLIST

11 Sep 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.746 of 2019

                                                Date of the Institution: 27.08.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 11.09.2019

 

 

 

L.R. Automobiles, Jind (Haryana) (An authorized dealer of Hyundai) through Rohit Kalra, General Manager (age 41 years), NH-712, Rohtak Road, Jind-126102 (Haryana).

 

 

…..Opposite Party No.1-Appellant

 

VERSUS

 

1.      Shiv Kumar Jindal son of Sajjan Kumar Jindal, resident of House No.816/17, Indra Bazar, Jind-126102 (Haryana).

 

…..Complainant-Respondent No.1

 

2.      Hyundai Motors India Limited, 2^nd, 5^th and 6^th Floor Corporate-I (Bani Building) Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110025.

 

…..Opposite Party No.2-Respondent No.2

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Ms. Manjula, Member.

 

 

                  

                                     

Present:-    Shri Sunil Polist, counsel for the appellant.

                    

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          The complainant, namely, Shiv Kumar Jindal had filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against L.R. Automobiles-opposite party No.1 and Hyundai Motors India Limited-opposite party No.2, wherein, he sought issuance of directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount received for the various accessories and services and also to pay compensation of `50,000/- as damages, pain and agony and `11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.      Vide order dated 26.7.2019, learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed opposite party No.1 to pay the complainant a sum of `6,062/- i.e., `3,062/- charged by opposite party No.1 in excess as R.C. preparation charges and `3,000/- as handling charges.  Opposite party No.1 was also directed to pay the complainant a sum of `5,500/- for harassment on account of mental pain and agony. The aforesaid amount was to be paid along with interest @ 12% per annum on the awarded amount for the period of default.

3.      Aggrieved of the impugned order, opposite party No.1, which was authorized dealer-cum-sales outlet of Hyundai Motors India Limited, has preferred the instant appeal.

4.      According to the complainant, he was registered owner of Hyundai Creta 1.4 CRDI-E car, which he had purchased from L.R. Automobiles-opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 10.11.2017 against a consideration of `9,99,900/-. At the time of purchase of the car, opposite party No.1 insisted upon the complainant to purchase the accessories from opposite party No.1, only then the delivery of car would be made. He was assured by opposite party No.1 that the accessories were genuine and reasonably priced. The complainant found that opposite party No.1 had charged excess amount for the accessories, which was double the rates and the accessories were also of inferior quality. It also charged excess amount for preparation of the registration certificate of the car, which amounted to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.

5.      Upon notice, opposite party No.1 filed written version, wherein, it raised various preliminary objections. On merits, it was stated that the car was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 had accessories outlet in its showroom. The complainant himself chose the accessories and the same were installed to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. No extra charges were taken from the complainant and the registration certificate of the vehicle was made again on the asking of the complainant. As such, there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.      Opposite party No.2 did not put in appearance and was accordingly proceeded against ex parte.

7.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Annexure CW along with documents Annexures C-1 to C-13, whereas, opposite party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure OPW1/A along with documents Annexures OP-1 to   OP-8.

8.      After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint by directing opposite party No.1 to pay `6,062/- (amount of `3,062/- charged in excess for getting R.C. prepared and `3,000/- as handling charges) besides paying a sum of `5,500/- for harassment on account of mental pain and agony.

9.      The State Commission has heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the impugned order.

10.    According to the complainant, he was made to purchase the accessories for his car from opposite party No.1-appellant, for which, he was charged double the rates as per market and also the same were of inferior quality. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 had pleaded that nothing had been illegally and forcibly charged from the complainant. It has come on record that opposite party No.1 charged a sum of `85,692/- for the purposes of getting R.C. prepared whereas the actual expenditure was `82,630/-. Besides `3,000/- had been charged from the complainant as handling charges. As such, the complainant had been charged `3,062/- in excess for R.C. preparation and `3,000/- as handling charges. The complainant is entitled to recover the aforesaid two amounts, totaling `6,062/-. In addition, the complainant was also entitled to `5,500/- for harassment on account of mental pain and agony.

11.    To be fair to the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be mentioned here that the appellant has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mehsana Agro Auto Machinery Pvt. Ltd. Versus Baldevbhai M. Patel, 2001(3) ALT 14, wherein the claim of the complainant therein for recovering an amount of `2,537/- for storage and handling charges, was upheld. The said amount was on account of charges for storage and handling. In the present case, the complainant had sought refund of `3,000/-, which had been charged for handling whereas in the case of Mehsana Agro Auto Machinery Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the complainant had also been asked to pay for the storage, in addition to the handling charges and as such the said judgment is not applicable in the present case.

12.    It may also be mentioned here that along with the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has filed application for giving additional evidence i.e., details of payment slip and R.C. receipts. However, at the time of hearing of the appeal no argument has been submitted in support of the said application. The application for additional evidence is accordingly dismissed.

13.    Resultantly, the appeal is devoid of any merit and therefore dismissed.

14.    The statutory amount of `5,800/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal be disbursed in favour of complainant/respondent No.1 against proper receipt and identification subject to filing of any appeal/revision.

 

 

Announced 11.09.2019

(Manjula) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.