DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 24.1.2018

                                      Decided on: 8.10.2020

Balpreet Singh S/o Gurjeet Singh r/o 18 Ghuman Nagar, Sirhind Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Sukhdev Automobiles Authorized Dealer, Royal Enfield, SCO 4-5, Nishant Bagh, Near Bahadurgarh, Rajpura Road, Patiala through its Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                             Sh.Gurjit Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.Karminder Singh, counsel for the OP.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Balpreet Singh   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Sukhdev Automobiles (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a classic 350 Royal Enfield Motor Cycle from the  OP after making payment of Rs.1,51,410/- on 27.10.2017.
3. It is averred that the OP charged  Rs.1,36,710/- as price of the motor cycle, Rs.3850/- for the insurance, Rs.350/- for lamination and Rs.10,500/- for the registration under MV Act, totaling Rs.1,51,410/-.
4. It is further averred that the OP has charged Rs.40/- in excess for the insurance of the motor cycle as the receipt issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is for Rs.3810/- only.
5. It is further averred that the OP charged Rs.10500/- for the registration of the vehicle but the Registration Authority issued the receipt for Rs.8545/-.In this way the OP has also charged Rs.1955/- more than the actual charges for the registration of the vehicle. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, which caused mental harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OP to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and also to refund the amount over charged by it.
6. Upon notice, OP appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written reply. In reply the OP raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as it has been filed totally on the basis of false, frivolous and baseless facts; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands; that there is no cause of action arisen to the complainant for filing the complaint and is liable to be dismissed.
7. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased Classic-350 Royal Enfield Motor Cycle from the OP on 27.10.2017. It is submitted that the complainant got booked the motor cycle in the name of his mother Smt.Manmohan Kaur wife of Sh.Gurjeet Singh R/o H.No.18,Ghuman Nagar, Sirhind Road, Patiala and paid Rs.5000/- on 23.10.2017 , Rs.75000/- on 3.10.2017 and Rs.71000/- on 27.10.2017, totaling Rs.1,51,000/-.
8. It is also admitted that Rs.1,36,710/- were received towards the price of the motor cycle. It is stated that Rs.3810/- was charged for the insurance of the vehicle and Rs.350/- was charged for the purpose of lamination. It is averred that Rs.10,115/- were charged for the registration of the vehicle, out of which an amount of Rs.9345/- has been paid as Road Tax, Rs.450/- for registration fee and Rs.43/-for the smart card.Rs.100/- as Society fee, scanning fee Rs.20/-, Smart Card Society Rs.157/-.The total amount charged by the OP is Rs.1,50,985/- and no excess amount was charged. Thus the complainant is not entitled to any compensation, and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C8 and closed the evidence.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukhdev Singh, Ex.OPA, alongwith documents Ex.OP1 copy of receipt of tax of vehicle,Ex.OP2 copy of booking receipt, Ex.OP3 copy of backside of booking receipt and closed the evidence.
11. Both the parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same,heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of case, carefully.
12. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP has charged more for insurance policy and for registration certificate .The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that his aspect is clear from the document Ex.C1, which is on the file and this document is of the OP duly signed by it. The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that as the amount of insurance and registration was wrongly charged, so excess amount be refunded.
13. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that they have not charged any excess amount.
14. To prove their case, both the parties tendered affidavits alongwith documents on the file.
15. As per Ex.C1, the OP has charged Rs.3850 for the insurance policy, but the insurance policy is on the file and as per that policy it has charged Rs.3810/-.So it is cleared that the OP has charged Rs.40/- more in lieu of the insurance policy.
16. It is further stated that OP has charged Rs.10,500/- for the registration Authority but they have deposited Rs.8545/- .So the OP has charged Rs.1955/-more.There is the receipt, Ex.C6, which shows that the Fee/tax amount of Rs.8545/-was deposited. The other documents, produced by the OP on the file is Ex.OP1, for the registration of the vehicle, according to which Rs.9345/- has been deposited as a lumpsum tax, Rs.450/- has been deposited for registration fee and Rs.43/- has been deposited for the smart card. In all Rs.9838/- for the registration has been deposited.So as per Ex.C1, the OP has charged Rs.662/- more for registration purposes. So it is cleared that the OP has charged Rs.40/- more for insurance policy and Rs.662/- more for registration purposes totaling Rs.702/-.
17. In view of our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OP is directed to refund Rs.702/- charged in excess, alongwith interest @6% per annum from 27.7.2017 till realization and Rs.2000/-as costs of the complaint to the complainant.Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:8.10.2020

                                       Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                 Member                                    President