Haryana

StateCommission

A/666/2016

GURCHARAN DAS MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BATRA AUTO CO. - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN GUPTA

22 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                           First Appeal No.666 of 2016

                                                         Date of Institution:20.07.2016

                                                          Date of Decision:22.08.2016

 

Gurucharan Das Mittal S/o Sh.Prem Raj Mittal, r/o # 211, Sector 16, Faridabad (Haryana).

…Appellant

                                      Versus

The Batra Auto Co. Showroom-cum-workshop, 14/1, Mathura Road, Faridabad through its General Manager.

                                                                             …Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

 

Present:     Mr.Varun Gupta, Advocate counsel for appellant.

 

                                                ORDER

 

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Gurcharan Das Mittal – complainant is in appeal for modification of the Order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby his complaint against the Batra Auto Co. has been allowed, holding them liable for deficiency in service.

 

2.         In brief, the complainant purchased one Maruti Swift VXI BS IV vide invoice No.VSL14000642 dated 30.06.2014 from OP for an amount of Rs.4,66,148/-, but the OP charged Rs.5,27,000/- from the complainant by adding Rs.17,384/- towards registration charge, Rs.338/- towards Auto Card, Rs.6000/- towards handling charges and Rs.2090/- towards kit charges even though OP had actually paid Rs.14805/- towards registration charges excluding penalty of Rs.70/- for late application. As such, OP had charged Rs.10257/- in excess from the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice to the OP for the refund of the excess amount, but the OP did not refund the same. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum praying for the issuance of directions to the OP to refund Rs.10,257/- charged in excess along with interest and charges for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses etc.   

3.         In reply, the OP admitted that the complainant had purchased said car vide said invoice for Rs.4,66,148/- and OP had received a sum of Rs.5,27,000/- from the complainant as Rs.491148/- towards ex-showroom cost of the vehicle, Rs.18166/- towards insurance premium Rs.17384/- towards registration charges. OP was ready to refund a sum of Rs.338/-, if the complainant was not interested to have auto card, Rs.6000/- as handling charges was as per price list approved by principal of OP company. Although detailed bill for a sum of Rs.2070/- as cost of accessories was issued to the complainant at the counter sale retails but OP was ready to provide photocopy of the same. OP visited the complainant at his residence and offered to refund auto card amount, but the complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on their part and the complainant was not entitled to any relief and compensation. The learned District Forum allowed the complaint by granting the following relief:-

“14. Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.2167/- (Rs.1829+338) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and to supply photocopy of the bill of accessories amounting to Rs.2070/- failing which OP shall also refund Rs.2070/- as well as to pay Rs.2200/- towards mental besides physical harassment in addition to Rs.1100/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order”.

4.         Against this impugned order dated 14.06.2016, the complainant has come up in appeal before us and has vehemently reiterated the contentions raised before the District Forum. In nutshell the appellant contends that the car dealer could not charge for logistic/handling charges as also the cost of accessories and that too without providing the necessary bills.  

5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record. It has been pleaded by the OP in their written statement that Rs.6,000/- as handling charges were realized from the complainant / appellant as per the price list issued, approved and updated by the Principal of the respondent company. This price list was shown to the complainant and it was thereafter that he purchased the car. Therefore, now he was not legally entitled to claim the refund of this amount. Moreover, we are satisfied that all the amounts which were charged by the OP for various items have rightly been ordered to be refunded by the learned District Forum, because the payments were duly corroborated by the bills. But no other bill has been produced by the complainant  for any other items, hence, he is not entitled to any additional amount over and above the amounts already received by him. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed thereby upholding a very well reasoned and detailed order by the learned District Forum.

 

August,22nd, 2016                  Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K. Bishnoi

                                                Member                                  Judicial Member

                                                Addl. Bench                            Addl. Bench

S.K.