Date of hearing : 30th March, 2016.

Date of judgement : Friday, 8th day of April, 2016.

HON’BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

Judgement

           Challenge in this appeal U/s. 15 of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986  (hereinafter referred to as “the Act “)by the Opposite Party is to a judgement dated 28th May, 2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at North 24-Parganas at Barasat ( for short, Ld. District Forum ) in consumer complaint No. 61 of 2013 whereby the consumer complaint initiated by the Respondent U/s. 12 of the Act was allowed exparte with cost of Rs. 2000/-with a direction upon the Opposite Party/Appellant to refund of Rs.8966/-, to pay compensation of Rs. 3000/- and punitive  damages of Rs.5000/- for adopting unfair trade practice.

                The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged  the complaint  alleging that he booked a Maruti Suzuki ( Swift D-zire ) Car in the showroom of the O.P. by depositing  of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as booking money. The estimated price of the car  was settled at Rs. 5,45,635/-. At the time of taking delivery of the car, on scrutiny of car registration paper, insurance paper and other documents it was detected that the O.P. has received higher amount under different heads. Therefore, the complaint was lodged with a prayer for compensation to the extent of Rs.50,000/-.

        In spite of receipt of notice O.P. did not appear before the Ld. District Forum and as such under compulsion the case was heard  and decided against the Appellant exparte.

          After proper study of the materials, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the Opposite Party  as indicated above, which prompted the O. P. to prefer this appeal.

        We have scrutinised the materials on record including the brief note of argument filed on behalf of the Respondent  and also considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.

        Admittedly, the Respondent  in order to purchase of a Maruti Suzuki (Swift D-zire ) Car  visited the show room of the Appellant and  deposited Rs. 10,000/- by way of a cheque and the estimated cost of the price of the car  was settled at Rs.5,45,635/-. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent took delivery of the car from the showroom of the Appellant.

        It is alleged by the Respondent  that  at the time of taking delivery  on perusal of the customer  docket, rate chart, tax token and copy of insurance policy he was surprised to see that although he has made payment of an amount of Rs.5,47,098/- and after cash discount of Rs.2098/- comes to Rs. 5,45,000/- but in fact, a sum of Rs.5,38,132/- was required  for the entire exercise.

         Having a look to the  materials on record we find that the price  of the car was 5,00,996/-, for purpose of registration a sum of Rs.22,240/- and for the purpose of insurance  of Rs. 12,856/- was required besides audio charge of Rs. 1540/- and number plate charge of Rs.500/- aggregating Rs.5,38,132/-. However, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant drawing our attention to the Invoice-cum-Certificate  of extended warranty registration  dated 27.02.2012 has submitted  that a sum of Rs.3910/- was given in favour of the Respondent as extended  warranty which will remain valid till July 23.07.2015. Therefore, after deducting  amount of Rs. 5,38,132/- from the deposit amount of Rs. 5,47,098/- it is revealed that the Appellant had collected  access amount of Rs.8966/-. However,  from the said amount,  for all fairness the amount of Rs. 3910/- is required to be deducted and if it is so deducted,  actually the Appellants have collected   access amount of Rs.5056/- from the Respondent. Needless to say, such  collection of access amount of  Rs.5056/- is not only a deficiency  in service on the part of the Appellant but also indicates unfair trade practices on the part of a dealer of a reputed manufacturing company  of vehicles.

        Mr. Barun Prosad, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted  that his client  did not get  opportunity to highlight the case before he Ld. District Forum and as such if an order is passed to remand the matter to the Ld. District Forum  his client will get an opportunity  to give explanation over the issue. We do not think that  such exercise would be required  because the rates mentioned in the car booking /commitment  check list dated 21.07.2012 is quite different with the documents like tax paid invoice, tax token and copy of insurance  policy etc.  and when those documents are available  with the record  any order of remand would frustrate the object of the  legislature behind the legislation of the Act.

        Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the respective parties, we think that the impugned order is  required to be  modified  in as much as the Respondent is entitled to get back the access amount of Rs. 5056/- with interest thereon as per prevalent  bank interest , i.e. @9% p.a. from 27.07.2012 ( actual date of payment) till its recovery.

        In view of the above, the appeal is allowed on contest in part but without order to costs in this appeal.

        The judgement dated 28th May, 2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum , 24 – Parganas ( N ) at Barasat in CC No. 61 of 2013 is modified  to the extent that the Appellant shall refund Rs.5056/- together with interest thereon @9% p.a. from 27.07.2012 till its realisation. The Appellant shall also pay  punitive damages of Rs. 5000/-for adopting  unfair trade practice in collecting the excess amount  than the actual  estimated costs. The payment must be  made within 30 days  from date, otherwise the Respondent/Complainant shall have liberty  to get the award executed through the Ld. District Forum.

        The Registrar of this Commission is directed  to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum, 24-Parganas(N) at Barasat for information.