DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 217 of 25.5.2016
Decided on: 23.11.2016
Jagdeep Singh S/o Sh.Shivraj Singh resident of Near DAV School, Teacher Colony, Jaiton Jaitu, Faridkot.
…………...Complainant
Versus
The Goyal Automobiles, Aashirwad Complex, Vill. Chamarhedi, Rajpura Road, Bahadurgarh, Patiala through its authorized representative.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Satish Kumar Gupta, Advocate,
counsel for the complainant.
Opposite Party Ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Satish Kumar Gupta has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To refund the excess amount of Rs.47,747/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum
- To pay damaged to the tune of Rs.35,000/-
- To pay Rs.15,000/- as counsel fee and litigation expenses.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Hyundai i20 car Model Active CRDi SX BSIV vide invoice No.204 dated 15.1.2016 after having paid an amount of Rs.10,10,000/- to the OP.The car in question was purchased in exchange of the old car No.CH-01-AL-7335, Model 2011, for the value of Rs.3,70,000/-The Op issued a receipt of Rs.86,410/- on 15.1.2016 regarding the payment of RC and Insurance. It also issued receipt on the same date for an amount of Rs.2,83,590/- as price of the old car. He took loan of Rs.6,40,000/- from State Bank of India against hypothecation of the vehicle in question. It is alleged that as per invoice dated 15.1.2016, the value of the new car was shown as Rs.8,73,583/-including VAT and surcharge. The OP paid Rs.26,488/- as insurance fee and Rs.62,181/- against registration, smart card and hypothecation fee. After going through the transaction, it has come to his notice that an amount of Rs.47.747/- has been charged in excess by the OP. In this regard he sent an e-mail dated 14.2.2016 to the OP. In reply to his e-mail, the OP sent reply dated 17.2.2016 and 18.2.2016 stating that excess money is lying with it, which will be refunded to him. A legal notice dated 30.3.2016 was also got served upon the OP. He requested the O.P., so many times for the refund of the extra amount charged from him but the O.P. failed to pay any heed to his requests and due to the said act of the O.P., he has suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
4. On being put to notice, the OP failed to appear and to contest the case and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
5. In exparte evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C11 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. From the copy of invoice dated 15.1.2016,Ex.C4, it is evident that the Ex-showroom price of the car in question was Rs.8,73,583/-.From the copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C5, it is evident that an amount of Rs.26,488/- was paid to get the car in question insured. An amount of Rs.62,181/- was paid to get the car in question registered with the Registering Authority, as is evident from the copy of Form-Receipt of Tax of Punjab Motor Vehicle Department, Ex.C6. As per complainant, the amount of insurance and registration fee was paid by the OP. As such in total the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.9,62,252/- i.e. Rs.8,73,583/- + Rs.26,488/- + 62,181 to the OP. From the receipt dated 15.1.2016, Ex.C2, it is evident that OP received a sum of Rs.86,410/-from the complainant, on account of registration and insurance of the vehicle in question. From the receipt dated 15.1.2016, Ex.C3, it is apparent that the OP received an amount of Rs.2,83,590/-from the complainant, on account of exchange of old car i.20, (2011 model).As per the complainant, in order to purchase the car in question, he got it financed for a sum of Rs. 6,40,000/- from SBI, Sirhind. Although, the complainant has not placed on record, the copy of loan agreement , yet in the e-mail dated February 14, 2016, Ex.C7, he has categorically stated that he purchased the car in question, after taking loan amounting to Rs.6,40,000/- from the SBI ,Sirhind. The Op in reply to the said e-mail dated Feb. 18, 2016, Ex.C8 has not raised any objection regarding taking of loan by the complainant from the SBI, Sirhind and has admitted the factum of lying of some excess money with it. Thus, it is born out from the record that in total the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.10,10,000/- to the OP. i.e. Rs.6,40,000/- +86410+ 2,83,590 to the OP. Whereas the complainant was to pay Rs.9.62,252/- as referred above. In this way, the complainant paid Rs.47,748/- in excess and it was the bounded duty of the OP to refund the same. By not refunding the said amount, the OP had committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the OP is liable to refund the amount of Rs.47,748/- to the complainant. Not only this, it is also liable to pay compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint against the O.P and direct it in the following manner:
- To refund an amount of Rs.47,748/- charged in excess
- To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation
- To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses
The O.P is further directed to comply the order, within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:23.11.2016 NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
