Sri Sudhansu Sekhar Manna,

son of K.B. Manna, residing at

Majumdarpara, Mohiyari    No. 1, P.O. Andul-Mouri,

 P.S. Domjur, District –Howrah,

PIN – 711302.-------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

T.C. Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

main showroom and workshop

at N.H. 6,  Salap More,

beside Kolkata West International City,

Howrah – 711 403.------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               Complainant. Sri Sudhansu Sekhar Manna, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to refund Rs. 20,855/- along with 18% p.a. interest since 10-03-2012, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony along with litigation costs and other orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.               Brief facts of the case is that complainant purchased one Sumo  Gold Car of TATA make from o.p. availing himself of a loan duly accorded by H.D.F.C. bank.  Complainant paid in cash Rs. 1,00,000/- through cheque being no. 804781 dated 01-03-2012 and Rs. 2,33,720/- through cheque being no. 804783 dated 10-03-2012  to o.p. as down payment for which o.p. issued two money receipts being Sl. No. 6137 & 6339 respectively. O.P. also issued one proforma invoice dated 19-02-2012 wherefrom it appears that for road tax registration, o.p. has charged  Rs.57,400/- for 5 years ( permanent ). After observing all formalities, vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 12-04-2012. After receiving tax token receipt, complainant came to know that o.p. has taken an excess amount of Rs. 11,560/- as total tax amount charged by Motor Vehicles Department is only Rs. 45,840/- vide Annexure Tax Token.  Similarly o.p. took an excess amount of Rs. 5,575/- towards insurance premium as complainant paid Rs. 26,235/- towards the same. But insurance company charged only Rs. 20,660/- towards insurance premium for the vehicle in question.  It is also alleged by the complainant that although the price of the vehicle is only  Rs. 6,80,000/-   vide  Annexure dated 19-02-2012, o.p. has received Rs. 6,83,720/-, i.e., an excess of amount of Rs. 3,720/- was received by o.p. Accordingly, it is the claim of the complainant that o.p. should refund him an amount of Rs. 20,855/-. Thereafter, complainant on several occasions visited o.p.’s office with the request to refund him the said amount. But all the time, o.p. on some pretexts or other has harassed him without doing anything fruitful. Even the Area  Sales Manager, Mr. Suprakaksh Giri told him that his file has been misplaced. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative complainant filed this instant case praying for the aforesaid reliefs.

3.               Notice was served. O.p. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written version filed by o.p. and noted its content. In page 4 of the written version, vide para 9, o.p. has admitted that some amount of excess money was received by o.p. which was spent on incidental charges, brokerage charges at  R.T.O.,  charges for obtaining  T.C. Numbers, misc. charges etc. for which o.p. cannot provide any written document. Moreover, the act of payment of road tax, registration charges, insurance premium etc. is entirely complainant’s duty. But o.p. did all these as they consider complainant as their valuable customer. In the same para, o.p. has also expressed their willingness and readiness to refund the excess amount as they cannot furnish any written document of such sundry expenses. Here we take a pose. It is our common experience that at the time of telling the exact price of the vehicle, the seller always has a talk over

the amount of insurance premium with the concerned insurance company.  And their own document is proforma invoice  dated 19-02-2012 in which o.p. charged the total cost of the vehicle as Rs. 6,80,000/-. But actually they took Rs. 1,00,000 + Rs. 2,33,720 + Rs. 3,50,000/- ( loan amount ) from the complainant which they should not have done. Complainant also requested them to refund that excess amount repeatedly. O.p. remained silent. That itself shows that o.p. does not care for their  esteemed customers. The well being of o.p.’s business depends upon its customers’ utmost satisfaction. But the o.p.’s attitude towards this instant complaint does not prove that they have any regard or respect towards their valued customers. At the same time they should not have adopted this kind of unfair trade practice. Under the above premises, we think that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant should be allowed.

Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

In the result, the complaint succeeds.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 243  of 2013 ( HDF 243 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      That the  O.P. is  directed to refund Rs. 20,855/- ( Rs. 3,720 +  Rs. 11,560 + Rs. 5,575/-) to the complainant  within 30 days from the date of this order.

      That the o.p. is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/-  as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

      The o.p. is directed to pay the entire amount of  Rs. 27,855/- within one month i.d., it shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.