Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

14/2014

Pavan Kumar Kanujia, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Nagappa Auto, - Opp.Party(s)

Party In Person

26 Aug 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  10.01.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  16.09.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 16^th   DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.14/2014

 

 

Pavan Kumar Kanaujia, Aged about 46 years,

S/o. Shri Raj Bahadur Singh,

Electrical Section,

MTTI Air Force,

Avadi, Chennai – 600 055 (TN),

Mobile No. 94442 38578.

 

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

The Manager,

Nagappa Auto,

B-25, 2^nd Avenue,

Anna Nagar, Chennai (TN)

PIN – 600 102,

Contact No. 044 - 26268050

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 22.01.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in person

Counsel for  Opposite party                     : M/s.Srenik  S Jain

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased a Hero Motors Bike (passion Pro Electric Start) on 09.10.2013 from the opposite party through Canteen Stores Department of Armed Forces at Chennai. On 07.10.2013 the Complainant contacted the opposite party to ascertain the amount for which bank draft is to be prepared. The opposite party informed the amount of Rs.42,939/- and accordingly he prepared draft and deposited at Canteen Stores Department at Chennai. The purchase order handed over to the opposite party on 09.10.2013 and he had also collected the vehicle on the same day. However the opposite party charged the following amount additionally

1. Life Tax                                                          Rs.3,401/-
2. Road Safety Tax                                  Rs.250/-
3. Registration Fee                                    Rs.160/-
4. Insurance & other incidental charges  Rs.2,309/-
5. RTO-AFF                                              Rs.875/-
6. DF Amt                                                 Rs.850/-
7. Charges for Affidavit                           Rs.600/-.

The Complainant was charged an amount of Rs.7,845/-  in addition to bank draft amount of Rs.42,939/-. The opposite party issued invoice for an amount of Rs.42,514/-  and however collected an amount of Rs.42,939/- for the vehicle. Therefore an extra amount of Rs.425/- had been charged by the opposite party. The opposite party also charged an amount of Rs.2,309/- towards insurance and other incidental charges which is higher than he is liable. The Insurance Company charged only Rs.1,260/-. Therefore an extra amount of Rs.1,049 collected by the opposite party. The opposite party also charged Rs.600/- for affidavit for address proof even though the Complainant submitted his identity proof issued by the Indian Air Force. However no affidavit was found with vehicle registration papers.  Hence the opposite party unauthorized by collected the sum of Rs.600/- from him.  The opposite party also collected an additional amount of Rs.850/- towards difference amount due to him.  When the Complainant was directed to prepare draft for Rs.42,939/-, the opposite party did not inform the additional amount of Rs.850/-.  Therefore the opposite party committed deficiency in service by collecting extra amount as stated above.  Hence the Complainant filed this complaint to refund the extra amount charged from him as conveyance charges and drafting application charges.  Hence the opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The price of Hero Passion Pro Bike is Rs.42,514/- for canteen stores department but other than the said price every buyer has to pay the following charges which is mandatory.

1. Life Tax                                                          Rs.3,401/-
2. Road Safety Tax                                  Rs.250/-
3. Registration Fee                                    Rs.160/-
4. Insurance & other incidental charges            Rs.2,309/-
5. RTO-AFF                                              Rs.875/-
6. DF Amt                                                 Rs.850/-
7. Charges for Affidavit                           Rs.600/-

The above mentioned charges are to borne by any purchaser irrespective whether he is from general public or from the defence force, thus the quotation for the impugned vehicle circulated by the canteen store department is bound to vary.  The Complainant was fully informed about all the above mentioned charges before making the payment.   The statement of account and the delivery note signed by Complainant would vouch for said statement. The Complainant had enquired about the price of the Hero Passion Pro Bike one week prior from the date of booking. On 09.10.2013 the Complainant booked the Hero Passion Pro Bike and wanted the delivery of the bike within half an hour on same day and this opposite party was impressing upon the Complainant that he cannot be given any out of turn priority and he has to wait for his turn and more over the vehicle has not been registered till then for which the Complainant stated that since he is attached with defence i.e. Indian Army, the law enforcing agency will dare to question him and took the vehicle on the same day without registration.  The Complainant was informed clearly about the additional charges which the Complainant has to bear other than the landing cost of the vehicle and accordingly the Complainant was instructed to obtain draft for a sum of Rs.42,939/- even though the cost of the vehicle is only Rs.42,514/-.  However, individuals like that of Complainant are obligated to pay 1% of the sale price to CSD.  A sum of Rs.1,049/- was charged as extra by the opposite party from the Complainant, the opposite party states that, the same was collected towards incidental charges such as for number plate, petrol for PDI checkup, godown charges, number sticker, transportation charges etc.  It is further stated that, a sum of Rs.1,260/- was charged towards insurance for the said vehicle the Complainant was clearly briefed about these charges and they have been transparent in all manner and the statement of accounts circulated to the Complainant would corroborate their contention. The Complainant is admittedly a non-resident of Chennai, a declaration for residence and identity proof has to be submitted to the Registering Authority in a NJS paper for which the opposite party charged a sum of Rs.600/-, for which the opposite party has parted bill to the Complainant.  Hero Moto Corp Ltd revised the price from 03.10.2013 thus the opposite party was constrained to receive a sum of Rs.850/- towards the differential, which the Complainant erroneously feels that as though they have taken home the said sum and hence there is no merit in the Complaint and the Opposite Party  prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.   

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4. POINT NO :1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased a Hero Motor Bike (Passion Pro Electric Start) on 09.10.2013 through Canteen Stores Department of Armed Forces at Chennai and the said vehicle Registration Certificate is marked as Ex.A1. Ex.A4 is the invoice issued for the value of its at Rs.42,514/- in favour of the Canteen Stores Department. However the opposite party advised the Complainant to take Demand Draft for the value of Rs.42,939/- instead of 42,514/- The said Demand Draft for Rs.42,939/- was handed over to the Canteen Stores Department and they issued a receipt of  TD Ex.A3 receipt.

5. The Complainant contended that the opposite party collected Rs.425/- etc. for the vehicle more than the amount available in Ex.A4 invoice. The opposite party would reply that due to increase in price of the vehicle they made demand of Rs.42,939/-. Whatever the case may be the said amount of Rs.42,939/- by way of demand draft tendered only to the Canteen Stores Department by the Complainant and therefore the contention of the Complainant that the opposite party collected an additional amount of Rs.425/- is not acceptable and in this respect the opposite party has not committed deficiency in service.

          6. Ex.A2 is the statement of account issued by the opposite party to the Complainant. The opposite party collected under the head of insurance and other incidental charges for a sum of Rs.2,309/- and whereas actually insurance company charge only Rs.1,260/- and therefore the remaining amount of Rs.1,049/- was collected by the opposite party unlawfully. Ex.A5 insurance is the proof for payment of Rs.1,260/- to the Insurance Company. However the opposite party pleaded in his written version that a sum of Rs.1,049/- was collected towards incidental charges such as  number plate, petrol for PDI checkup, godown charges, number sticker, transportation charges etc. The above statement of opposite party in respect of incidental charges pleaded in the written version vehemently denied by the Complainant in his proof affidavit that he only got the number written  in the front and back of the vehicle with paint and neither any sticker was given by the opposite party. Among incidental charges detailed in the written version by the opposite party, the Complainant stated in his proof affidavit that he had only written the number in the bike. In respect of the other incidental charges the Complainant had not denied. Therefore a sum of Rs.1,049/- was collected towards the incidental and the said amount also initially  accepted and paid by the Complainant under Ex.A2, Clearly establishes that the opposite party had not collected unnecessary incidental charges and thereby we hold that in this receipt, the opposite party had not committed deficiency in service.

          7. The next contention of the Complainant is that a sum of Rs.600/- was collected towards Auto charges to prepare an address proof affidavit for the Complainant is not sustainable since the said affidavit was not filed by the opposite party in the RTO office at the time of registration of the vehicle. The opposite party admits he was collected a sum of Rs.600/- towards charges for affidavit. The said affidavit was prepared only in Rs.20/- non judicial stamp paper. Therefore for collecting a sum of Rs.600/- for the purchase of Rs.20/- stamp paper is unjustified and the opposite party unethically collected such huge amount in this respect and thereby in this regard we hold that the opposite party committed unfair trade practice and thereby committed deficiency in service.

8. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.850/- in Ex.A2 towards extra amount due by him and the said amount was also collected by the opposite party. Ex.A2 statement of account the total arrived   at Rs.50,359/- and he had paid only a sum of Rs.49,509/- and due to pay a sum of Rs.850/- to the opposite party under Ex.A2. Therefore collecting additional amount of Rs.850/- is not a deficiency on the part of the opposite party.        

          9. As per the forgoing discussions finally we hold that only in respect of the preparation of address proof affidavit collecting a sum of Rs.600/- instead of Rs.20/- we hold that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service.    

10. POINT NO :2

          The opposite party collected only a sum of Rs.600/- towards charges for the affidavit. The actually value of the stamp paper for affidavit is Rs.20/-. By deducting the cost of the stamp paper the Complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.580/- from the opposite party due to heavy charge for affidavit the Complainant suffered  with mental agony and harassment and in this respect a sum of Rs.2,000/- can be ordered as compensation besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.   

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.580/- (Rupees five hundred and eighty only ) to the Complainant  and also to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

        The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 16^th day of September 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 21.10.2013                   Certificate of Registration

Ex.A2 dated 09.10.2013                   Statement of Accounts (Invoice)

Ex.A3 dated 09.10.2013                   Official Report

Ex.A4 dated 09.10.2013                   Tax/Retail invoice

Ex.A5 dated 17.10.2013                   Insurance details/charges

Ex.A6 dated 09.10.2013                   Computerized receipt

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY :

Ex.B1 dated 03.10.2013                   Price revision circular

Ex.B2 dated 09.10.2013                   Purchase Order

Ex.B3 dated 09.10.203           Authority letter for collecting of AEO category

                                                   items

Ex.B4 dated 09.10.2013                   Tax/ retail invoice

Ex.B5 dated 09.10.2013                   Allotment cum customer cover

Ex.B6 dated  09.10.2013                  Delivery note

Ex.B7 dated 09.10.2013                   Statement of Account

Ex.B8 dated 17.10.2013                   Two wheeler certificate –cum policy schedule

Ex.B9 dated 18.10.2013                   Affidavit

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT