Tripura

StateCommission

A/26/2017

M/S Maya Motors Pvt Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Prabhat Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Bibek Banarjee, Miss. Ruma Majumdet

11 Jul 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.26.2017

 

 

 

1. M/s Maaya Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
   Gorkhabasti, Airport Road,
   Agartala, District - West Tripura.

… … … … … Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

•  

 

1. Sri Prabhat Kumar,
   30/2 KLP Area Salbagan,
   Agartala, District - West Tripura,
2. .

 

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                 Mr. Bibek Banerjee, Adv.

For the Respondent:                         In person

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 11.07.2017.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant, Maaya Motors Pvt. Ltd. challenging the judgment dated 27.02.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in case No. C.C. 98 of 2016 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the respondent Sri Prabhat Kumar (hereinafter referred to as complainant). In the aforesaid judgment, the Ld. District Forum directed the Proprietor of the appellant, Maaya Motors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party) to refund the excess amount taken for insurance, registration, EW, AMC, Teflon charge and in addition to that also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for deficiency of service and harassment. The payment is to be made within one month and if the aforesaid amount is not paid within time, it will carry interest @9% per annum.

2. Heard Mr. Bibek Banerjee, Ld. Counsel appeared for the appellant-opposite party as well as Sri Prabhat Kumar, the respondent-complainant appeared in person.
3. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant, Sri Prabhat Kumar purchased a Scooty Honda Dio from the opposite party Maaya Motors, authorized dealer of Honda at Gukhabasti, Agartala. Opposite party Maaya Motors issued booking format charging Rs.60,241/- which was paid by the complainant. Money receipt for Rs.60,241/- was also provided to the complainant, but when the complainant received the receipt about the payment on different heads, he found that excess amount was taken as insurance premium, registration charge for which money receipt was not supplied to him though the complainant demanded the same. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint petition before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act wherein he claimed compensation amounting to Rs.2 lacs.

4. The opposite party Maaya Motors appeared and filed written statement stating that complainant accepted the rate of the vehicle Rs.60,241/- as mentioned in the booking form and he has also signed the booking form and on his acceptance of the rate, the scooter was sold out to him. Thus, there is no deficiency of service by the opposite party. It is also stated that the complaint petition filed by the complainant is not maintainable, as the complainant did not verify which part of his assertion is true to his knowledge and which part is true to his information or is based on records.
5. Complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and also produced some documents which was supplied to him by the opposite party.
6. Opposite party was not provided any opportunity to examine its proprietor as a witness though the documents given by the opposite party were exhibited.
7. The Ld. District Forum on the basis of the pleadings of the parties had formulated the following points for deciding the case.

1. Whether excess amount was taken by the opposite party Maaya Motors as price and other charges?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to get compensation as claimed?

8. The Ld. District Forum considering the evidence on record and the documents as exhibited passed the impugned judgment.
9. Mr. Banerjee, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the Ld. District Forum in Para-8 of its judgment held that “When the O.P. is taking money for any service or price of any article then he must give receipt for receiving the payment. Rs.60,241/- was taken in total. But clean receipt not given in respect of those. But the receipt given in respect of insurance, registration is found not similar as per payment. Excess amount taken. It may be service charge but no receipt given for that. No evidence given by the O.P. to support that those articles were supplied to the petitioner.” But admittedly, when the opposite party was not allowed to adduce any evidence by way of examining his proprietor, how the opposite party can clarify the amount which was taken and no receipt was given and for what purpose. He finally submits that the opposite party did not take any excess amount from the complainant beyond the amount mentioned in the booking form.
10. The complainant Sri Prabhat Kumar submits that the opposite party though provided him receipt regarding the retail invoice for scooty amounting to Rs.52,380/- and for the insurance premium an amount of Rs.1,731/- and for registration fee Rs.3,825/-, but no receipt was provided for the excess amount.
11. We have gone through the complaint petition from which it appears that the complaint petition filed by the complainant is without any verification. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahyco Seeds Company Ltd. Vs. Basappa Channapppa Mooki & others (Civil Appeals No. 2425-2428 of 2008) noted, inter alia, that “It goes without saying that the person filing the complaint must verify which part of his assertion is true to his knowledge- which is true to his information or is based on records. Even though under the provisions of the said Act the procedure to be followed for adjudication on the complain is summary and does not all for any complicated production of the evidence, but the basic rules of pleading and evidence have to be followed and the complainant must support his complaint with some verification so that person, against whom such complain is made, knows what charge he has to meet. This is the basic requirement of natural justice.”
12. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complaint petition itself is a defective one. We have also gone through the price list produced by the opposite party from which it appears that Ex Showroom price of the scooty is Rs.52,380/-, Insurance including Printing & Stationary Expenses is Rs.1,756/-, for Temporary Registration including TA/DA and others are Rs.500/-, an amount for Permanent Registration including TA/DA and others are Rs.3,325/-, for Extended Warranty Rs.610/-, for AMC Rs.770/-, for Teflon Rs.500/- and for High Security Nameplate with fittings Rs.400/-, in total Rs.60,241/- and admittedly, the opposite party received Rs.60,241/- from the complainant. Thus, it cannot be said that any excess amount was taken from the complainant, but undoubtedly, segment wise some receipt of amount was not provided to the complainant and why those receipt could not be provided that could not be explained by the opposite party as it was not given opportunity to adduce evidence on that count. However, as both the parties had agreed to settle the disputes amicably on the following terms, we are not going to decide the appeal on merit. The terms on the basis of which the matter settled is as under:-

The opposite party will pay the excess amount and the litigation cost in total Rs.3,000/- by today itself and accordingly, the opposite party paid the aforesaid amount to the complainant which he has received and also for that he has given proper receipt with full and final settlement.

As the matter is settled amicably between the parties, we did not express any opinion on merit as stated (supra), but in future the opposite party should issue segment wise money receipt to the purchaser so that a purchaser can understand for what purpose what amount is received by the opposite party.

In view of the above, the impugned judgment is modified to the extent as indicated above. The appeal is partly allowed.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.