DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 452/2013
Sh. Din Dayal Arora, SENIOR CITIZEN
S/o Late Shri R.P. Lal,
R/o G-3, Saket,
New Delhi – 110017. ……Complainant
Versus
1. The Competent Automobile Company Ltd.
GF-7, 3C’S Complex, 15 Feroze Gandhi Marg,
Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi – 24.
2. Transport Department, Government of
National Capital Territory of Delhi,
5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi – 54. ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 27.08.13 Date of Order : 12.01.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Maruti Alto K10 car (DL 2C AL 8194) from M/s Competent Automobile Co. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (OP-1) in August 2010 for a total cost of Rs., 3,34,699/- which included registration charges of Rs. 13980/- as against Rs. 12,612, Rs. 200/- towards cost of number plate and Rs. 5000/- as advance money. The complainant is said to have come across a newspaper advertisement issued by the Transport Deptt., Govt. of NCT of Delhi (OP-2) dated 21.4.12 (Annex. E) in the Hindustan Times therein cautioning all the dealers to refrain from charging excess amount from the customers which was unauthorized and also newspaper item dated 21.4.12 in the Hindustan Times regarding High Court’s order slamming Delhi Government’s Transport Department and ordered the Transport Department of Delhi Government for a strict action against the errant dealers. The court further ordered that Delhi Government would look into any complaint where illegal amount has been charged by the errant dealers. This triggered the complainant to claim refund of Rs. 3500/- towards illegal charges and Rs. 200/- towards illegally charged number plate and also to seek details of Rs. 13980/- as registration charges as against Rs. 12,612/- including Smart Card charges and also refund of Rs. 5,000/- paid as advance which was not adjusted vide his letter dated 4.9.12 . Complainant has given the claim details as follows:
Loading/Unloading charges illegally charged Rs. 3,500
Excess amount charged for registration Rs. 1,368
Cost of Number Plate Rs. 200
Amount paid as advance Rs. 5,000
Total Rs. 10,000
Plus damages/compensation Rs. 10,000
It is prayed that OPs be directed to pay the above amount along with interest.
In its written statement, OP-1 has justified the charges towards warehousing, driving cost, fuel consumption, people engaged and various other factors towards logistic and handling charges.
OP-2 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 16.5.2014.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP-1 ascertaining that he had paid exact amount of Rs. 3,27,909/- and had disputed registration charges which were charges as Rs. 13980 as shown in the receipt as against Rs. 12,242/- calculated @ 4% of the cost of vehicle. Besides the complainant has alleged deficiency in service stating that the mileage of the vehicle is about 12-13 kilometers per liter as against 20-22 kilometers per liter as claimed by the Maruti car company. However, this issue has not been pursued further by the complainant. The complainant has further complained for non-refund of Rs. 5000/- as advance.
Complainant as well as OP-1 have adduced evidence by way of affidavits and have also filed written arguments.
We have heard the arguments of the complainant and have also carefully gone through the record.
While adverting on the merits of the case from law point, we find that the complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle during Aug. 2010 and raised complaint on 27th Aug, 2013 i.e. after three years of the purchase of the vehicle. The complainant has relied upon the notification of Transport Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi said to have been published in the Hindustan Times on 21st April, 2012 which is exhibited as Annex. E in the affidavit of complainant. We have carefully perused this notification. We do not find any definitive direction of Govt. of Delhi to refund the excess amount charged by dealers, if any, nor the said notification prescribes retrospective effect. Therefore, the said notification cannot be given retrospective effect. Same is the case with news article (copy Annex. F). Hence, we do not see any merit in the complaint which is offshoot of aforesaid notification of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and news article Annexure F. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 12.01.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 452/13
12.1.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
By D K Yadav
