DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO.05 OF 2015
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhira Laxmi Pattanaik - Member.
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy - Member.
Kunja Bihari Satapathy, aged 43 years
S/O: Sri Kishore Chandra Debata At/Po: Masterpada, Phulbani
PS: Town Police Station, Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal …………………………… Complainant.
Versus.
1. The C.O.O, Sky Auto Mobiles
Sri Pravin Kumar Lath.
2. The C.E.O, Sky Auto Mobiles
3. Rajendra Kumar Sahu Team Manager of Sales
Sky Automobiles
All are At- Plot No. A/17 Maharaja Cinema Complex,
Bhoi Nagar PS: Saheed Nagar Bhubaneswar
Dist: Khurda, Odisha. ……………………………. OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri Soumya Ranjan Sahu, Advocate and his Associates
For the OPP. Parties: Mr. Suresh Ch Das and his Associates.
Date of Order: 27-10-2016.
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in brief is that on 03-08-2014 he had booked a Maruti Dzire-VXI car by depositing Rs. 10,000/- before the O.P. The said car was delivered to the Complainant on 18-09-2014 after payment as per demand of the O.Ps. The O.P No.3 had also received Rs. 19,502/- from the Complainant towards the Insurance Premium but they had not given the original invoices, money receipts and other documents of the vehicle of the Complainant. At that time the O.P No.3 and one Mr. Jajati assured to the Complainant to refund Rs. 1, 88,526/- the excess deposited amount. In this regard the O.P No.3 had also given a hand note of calculation to the Complainant.
-2-
After several requests of the Complainant the O.Ps have not issued any invoices, money receipts as well as the R.T.O documents with a plea that the computer system has been destroyed by the shut circuit. After several requests of the Complainant the O.P No.3 informed to deposit Rs. 37,800/- for arrangement of documents .Finding no other alternative the Complainant had deposited Rs. 37,800/- in the account of Sky Automobiles through Allhabad Bank on 16-10-2014. As the O.Ps have not sent the document the Complainant went to Bhubaneswar and met with O.P No. 3 and Mr Jajati for the purpose. But they have denied to issue the documents. On 25-10-2014 the Complainant and his friends contacted with the Customer Care Manager and one Madam of this establishment but all the attempts were in vain. After many telephone calls and messages to the O.Ps the Complainant sent a pleader notice to the O.Ps on 07-11-2014.Then the O.Ps have sent the invoices and R.T.O documents on 14-11-2014 through speed post vide serial No. EO687522622IN dated 17-11-2014 which are forged documents. The O.P No.3 has assured to refund Rs. 6,000/- towards the excess of insurance fees. As the O.Ps has not refunded the excess deposited amount and the original documents to the Complainant he has filed this complaint against them for their monopoly trade practice and deficiency in service. The Complainant was harassed due to the negligence and non cooperative behavior of the O.Ps for which he claimed the following reliefs:
1.The O.P No.1 and 2 be directed to give the clear calculation sheet and to issue the original documents such as invoices, R.T.O Documents, Money Receipts and Insurance bond to the Complainant.
2.The O.Ps be directed to refund Rs 1, 88,526/- the excess payment made by the Complainant as per instruction of the O.P No.3.
3.The O.Ps may be directed to refund Rs. 37,800/- , Rs6000/- paid towards Insurance Premium as excess money and Rs. 4550/- towards handling charges.
4.Compensation or Rs 50,000/- may be granted in favor of the Complainant
5.The total claim amount is Rs2, 76,876/- be awarded in favor of the Complainant.
The case of the O.Ps as per their joint version is that the Complainant purchased the
Car after enquiry of the price list and after receiving the quotation of the O.Ps for which the question of collection of excess amount does not arise. The O.Ps have sent the invoices , R.T.O documents and hand note of calculation as per the instruction of the Complainant through speed post before the pleader notice by the Complainant . That the relief claimed by the Complainant are not tenable and the Complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the O.Ps.
The further case of the O.ps is that the Complainant agreed to purchase the car on exchange of his old ALTO LXI CAR bearing Regd No. OR-07-V-8486 and this fact was suppressed by him in his complaint petition. The rate price of the vehicle was Rs. 6, 43.565/- including all ancillary cost and the Ex-show room price was fixed to Rs.5, 80,603/-. The handing charges of the said vehicle was Rs. 4450/- which was meant for transporting of the vehicle from Go down to Showroom, fuel,
-3-
washing, tough-up and godown security charges. The customer is also required to pay Rs. 1500/- towards standard MGA which is meant for footmat ,steering cover, perfume etc, and Rs. 7860/- towards MSIL extended warranty of the vehicle, Rs. 37,800/- towards registration fee before R.T.O and Rs. 19,502/- towards Maruti Insurance. On 07-08-2014 the Complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- as booking fees , Rs. 10,000 on 18-09-2014,Rs.3,95,000/- as loan amount from Shriram Finance, Rs.1,65,000/-the exchange value of his ALTO LXI car ,Exchange Bonus of Rs. 10,000/- ,Rs. 6.500 Special discount by the dealer and the total payment of the Complainant was Rs. 5,96,500 /- to the O.Ps . So, the O.P No.3 repeatedly call to the Complainant for payment of the rest amount Rs. 47,215/- Hence, he has deposited Rs. 37,800/- on 01-10-2014, for which unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps does not arise. As there is no cause of action on the part of the Complainant to file this complaint and as the same is not maintainable, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in the eye of law.
During course of hearing the Complainant has filed an affidavit in token of his evidence. He was examined and cross examined .Exit-1 to Exit -9 were marked on his behalf. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the O.Ps.
We have heard the Complainant and the learned counsel of both the parties. We have gone through the complaint petition, joint version of the O.Ps, the affidavit filed by the Complainant and his deposition including the document marked as Exhibits on behalf of the Complainant. We have also seen the memo of arguments filed by the Complainant. During course of argument it is submitted by the learned counsel of the Complainant that though the Opposite Party delivered the vehicle to the Complainant on 18-09-2014, they failed to hand over the necessary documents to the Complainant at that time . After repeated requests the Complainant sent a pleader notice on 07-11-2014 vide Exhibit-7, for which on 17-11-2014 the O.ps sent an original invoices and R.T.O documents to the Complainant through speed post vide Exhibit -6/6. It is further submitted by him that the O.P No.3 has demanded Rs. Rs. 37,800/- ,for which the Complainant had deposited the same amount through Alhabad Bank , Phulbani Branch on 16-10-2014 in the account of the O.Ps vide Exhibit-9 . It is pointed out by the learned counsel of the Complainant that the O.Ps have taken Rs. 19,502/- twice from the Complainant towards premium of insurance vide Exhibit -4 and Exhibit-6/7. As per Exhibits-5/2, the Complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 1, 88.526/- from the O.P in connection with the rough calculation sheet of the O.Ps.
We find sufficient force on the submission of the learned counsel of the Complainant. The O.P neither adduced any evidence in support of his case nor filed any valid documents to counter the allegation of the Complainant. The Advocate of the O.P has also not filed any written argument in support of his stand. The reply dated 20-11-2014 of the O.Ps to the pleader notice given by the Complainant on 07-11-2014 vide Exhibit -7 shows that the O.Ps have not clarified all the allegations raised by the Complainant . So, the written statement given by the O.Ps is only after thought. Moreover We are not able to believe why the O .P had received the insurance premium amount twice from the Complainant. The O.Ps also failed to clarify regarding the demand of
-4-
Rs.37, 800/- from the Complainant. It is admitted by the O.P that they had delivered the vehicle on 18-09-2014 and supplied the documents to the Complainant on 17-11-2014 after 2 months. It amounts negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The rough account sheet prepared by the O.ps vide Exhibit-5 and 5/2 are not clearly established by the Complainant. So, we are not taking into consideration regarding refund of the balance amount to the tune of Rs. 1,88,526/- to the Complainant but the O.Ps committed gross negligence during their sell transactions with the Complainant . Such type of unfair trade practice should be avoided by the O.Ps in feature.
In the above circumstance the Complaint filed by the Complainant is partly allowed. The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 37,800/- as per Exhibit-9 and Rs. 19.502/- towards insurance premium to the Complainant along with Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for let delivery of bonafied documents of the vehicle to the Complainant. The O.ps are further directed to pay Rs. Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant. The above order be complied within 3o days from the receipt of this order. In case of failure the Complainant is entitled to get 12% annum interest on the entire awarded amount from the date of filing it is on 17-01-2015 till the date of payment.
The C.C is disposed - of accordingly. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties at an early date.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
