Date of filing : 07-06-2012
Date of order : 11-02-2013
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.115/2012
Dated this, the 11th day of February 2013
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
K.Basheer, S/o.Abdul Rahiman, :Complainant
R/at Jameela Manzil, Kalanad.Po.
Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv.George John Plamootil, Kasaragod)
1. The Manager, Apco Vehicles (India) Pvt.Ltd, : Opposite parties
Indira Nagar, Chengala.Po. Kasaragod.671541
2. The General Manager,
Apco Hundai Vehicles (India) Pvt.Ltd,
Mini Bypass, Puthiyara.Po, Calicut.673004.
(Ops 1 & 2 Adv.K.Shahaz, Calicut)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDIHIQ, PRESIDENT
The complaint in brief can be summarized as follows:
Complainant purchased an i20 Hyundai Car through 1st opposite party. But 1st opposite party charged Rs.10,000/- towards handling and logistic charge and Rs.3100/- towards the number booking charges in addition to the vehicle price in settlement sheet issued by opposite party No.1. In settlement sheet the price of the vehicle is shown as Rs.6,10,603/-. Though complainant asked to refund of the said amount, it was in vain. Hence the complaint.
2. According to opposite parties the exact shown room price of Hyundai i20 CRDM Magna Car was Rs.6,10,603/-. Apart from the exact show room price, the charges of the road-tax, insurance, handling and logistic charges registration charges etc are applicable for all the vehicles and it is fixed as per the Kerala Vehicle Dealers Association mandates. The handling and logistic charges for 120 Hyundai car throughout the state is Rs.10,000/-. The price list of the vehicle will show the same. Complainant had not raised any objections even at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle. The sum of Rs.3100/- collected towards the number booking charges for providing a fancy registration number. The complaint is only a reprisal to the non submission of his demand for free car accessories worth Rs.10,000/-.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. Exts A1 to A4 marked on his side and he faced cross-examination by the learned counsel for opposite party. On the side of 1st opposite party Abdusamad, the Finance & Administrative Manager of opposite party filed affidavit and Exts B1 to B4 marked. He is cross-examined by the learned counsel for complainant Both sides heard. Documents perused.
4. The points arises for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.13100/- as claimed by him?
2. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3. What is the order as to relief & costs?
For the sake of brevity and convenience all the points are discussed together.
5. According to opposite parties Rs.10,000/- is collected towards the handling and logistic charges and Rs.3100 is collected towards the booking of fancy registration number. According to them no order law, rule or regulation prohibits them from collecting handling and logistic charges. The further contention of opposite parties is that at the time of booking the vehicle opposite party No.1 had made known the complainant all the details about the price of the vehicle and it is only after a clear understanding of the price list the complainant booked the same. Ext.B1 is the price list produced by the complainant in which in addition to ex-show room price of the vehicle, road tax, insurance, Registration charge, Handling and logistic charges, on road price, extended warranty etc are seen added. It is a computer generated print out. Ext.B1 nowhere states that it is brought to the notice of any customer. On the other hand Ext.A4 is the copy of the order booking form. Ext. A4 nowhere shows that the price of the vehicle will include other than ex-show room price. On the overleaf of Ext.A4 order booking form several conditions are seen. But no condition shows that the customer has to pay additional amounts other than ex-show room price. Condition No.7 envisages that Temporary Registration/Permanent registration will be carried out on receipt of the full ex-show room price by DD and receipt of all necessary documents.
6. On a bare reading of these terms and conditions printed on Ext.A4, what is perceived by a common man will be that one shall pay only the ex-show room price of the vehicle by way of DD for the vehicle. Hence the contention that at the time of booking itself complainant was made aware about the handling and logistic charges is appears to be not true. Whether the collection of handling and logistic charges are justifiable is the next point to be looked in to.
7. ‘Ex-show room price of a vehicle’ means the price which includes all expenses incurred by the dealer outlet including the profit margin’. So it is clear that the ex-show room price is fixed by the manufacturer at the premises of the dealer out let. Hence there is no question of collecting further logistic charges & handling charges from a consumer and there is no need or occasion for the dealer to charge more than the ex-show room price.
8. The learned counsel for the opposite parties Sri. Shahazed invited our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi in WP ( C ) 8408/2011 in the case of C.Rajevan V GNCT of Delhi & Ors and relying on the same contended that in the absence of any law to control the collection of handling and logistic charges the opposite parties can collect such charges.
9. But on going through the said judgment it is not possible to infer that the Hon’ble High Court has ratified the collection of handling and logistic charges. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed that if the purchasers are agree to pay the extras in terms of services, goods, fuel etc in the absence of any law to control the same the High Court cannot issue any direction with respect there to.
But in the case on hand the complainant never agreed to pay handling and logistic charges to the opposite party and that is the reason he filed this complaint.
Further the contention of the opposite parties is that there is no ban or bar for collecting the handling and logistic charges. It is apparent that they are collecting such charges as if it is a matter of their right and levied like a government levy when it is not. There are no rules in the motor vehicles Act which authorize them to collect these charges. It is like transferring the payment dealer’s commission that is liable to be paid by the manufacturer to the ultimate customer.
10. The learned counsel for opposite parties Adv.Shahzad further contended that handling charge includes even the petrol charges which the dealer required to be filled in the vehicle when it is delivered to the customer. This contention is not digestable without a pinch of salt. A buyer is not expected to lift the car in hand to a petrol pump. He cannot tow it to a pump either. When a vehicle which is running on petrol, a dealer is neither expected to deliver it without fuel nor the customer is expected to bring petrol to the dealer out let to lift the vehicle to avoid payment of such sundry expenses. Of course there is no bar/ban/prohibition to raise the price of the vehicle to the dealer/manufacturer, if the manufacturer/dealer requires more profit or they are not getting sufficient margin out of the prevailing price, they should show the audacity to raise the price of the vehicle but in no way they are entitled to charge under the above counts.
11. Regarding the collection of Rs.3100/- towards fancy number registration, during enquiry it is came to our knowledge that the registration number of the complainant’s vehicle is a fancy number which definitely requires extra amount to be remitted with the registering authority than the usual registration charges. Hence we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to get the refund of the same even if he has not requested for any fancy number for his car.
12. Therefore we are of the view that collection of handling charges and logistic charges in addition to the ex-show room price of the vehicle amounts to unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled to get refund of the said amount of Rs.10000/-.
In the result, complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.10,000/- that is collected from the complainant on the heads of handling and logistic charges together with a cost of Rs.3,000/-. Time for compliance of this order is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which Rs.10,000/- will further carry interest 12% from today till payment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.03-03-2012 copy of lawyer notice.
A2.Postal acknowledgement card.
A3.Photocopy of settlement sheet of Basheer
A4. Filled Order Booking Form.
B1. Prince list w.e.f.16-01-2012 Apco Hyundai, Kasaragod.
B2.Quality Rating.
B3.series receipts.
B4. 17-03-2012 reply notice.B4(a) receipt.
PW1.Basheer.K.
DW1. Abdusamad.A.P.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
