West Bengal

Cooch Behar

CC/44/2022

Tapan Kumar Barman, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Laki Lubna Automobiles, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Santosh Kr. Sah,

23 Jun 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
B. S. Road, Cooch Behar -736101.
Ph. No. 03582-230696, 222023
E-mail - confo-kb-wb at the rate of nic.in
Web - www.confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/44/2022
( Date of Filing : 30 Aug 2022 )
 
1. Tapan Kumar Barman,
S/o. Manoj Kumar Barman, Vill. Haribhanga, P.O. Khutamara, P.S. Sahebganj, Dist. Cooch Behar-736134.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Proprietor, Laki Lubna Automobiles,
Main Road, Nazirhat, P.O. Nazirhat, P.S. Sahebganj, Dist. Cooch Behar-736134.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. RUMPA MANDAL MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. SUBHAS CHANDRA GUIN MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Sri Santosh Kr. Sah,, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Sri Dulal Ch. Dey,, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 23 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

 

Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.

The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant Tapan Kumar Barman purchased XL100CC compact B.S.6(Luna) from the proprietor Laki Lubna Automobiles on 20.03.21 with down payment of cost of Rs.18,300/- and OP arranged the rest amount with financial help of L & T Finance Limited. The total costing of vehicle amounting to Rs.50,438/-. After purchasing and completion of all formalities OP delivered all papers before  the Complainant. As per loan account statement OP received finance amount Rs.55,119/- and cash payment of Rs.18,300/- total of Rs.73,419/- from the Complainant. But as per document Complainant noticed that total cost of vehicle amounting to Rs.50,438/-, R.C. charge Rs.5434/- plus insurance charge of Rs.4540/- total Rs.60,412/-. But the OP illegally received Rs.73,419/-. So, the OP took excess amount Rs.13,007/-. So there was a discrepancy between the loan account statement and the other documents. The Complainant informed the total matter before the OP demanding to return the excess amount charged by the OP. But OP did not return back the money. Thereafter on 21.03.20222 Complainant filed written complaint before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice at Cooch Behar by the matter was not settled. On 22.03.2022 Complainant filed written complaint before the OP through registered post. Above all the activities on the part of the OP are totally illegal. Accordingly Complainant suffered irreparable financial loss which is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The cause of action arose on 20.03.21 when the Complainant purchased the vehicle being No.WB-64-Z1282 and when OP received excess amount and on 21.03.2022 and on 22.03.2022 when the OP filed written complaint and it is still continuing. The Complainant prayed for an award to refund  the amount of Rs.13,0007/- with up to date interest and Rs. 1 Lakh towards deficiency in service as well as mental pain and agony and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.

The OP contested the case by filing written version objection denying all the allegations against him. The positive defence case is that extra charge is given in the following manner. Broker’s charge for proportion of RLC Rs.1766/-, travelling charge to showroom to main dealer Rs.1000/-, petrol charge Rs.500/- and other charge. So the total charge as per the version of the OP is Rs.3466/-. Complainant purchased the vehicle on 20.03.21 but after long gap for illegal gain to be dismissed.

The respective case of the parties demand for ascertainment of following points.

Points for Determination

  1. Whether the present case is maintainable or not?
  2.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
  3. To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?

Decision with reasons

Point No.1.

The OP challenged the case that it is not maintainable but could not specify any particular legal point as to why the case is not maintainable.

The present case is filed by the Complainant Tapan Kumar Barman as a consumer against the OP, Laki Lubna Automobiles for charging excess amount which is allegedly deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Perused the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, considered the Commission is of the view that the present case is maintainable.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is decided in favour of the Complainant.

Points No.2 & 3.

Both the points are closely interlinked, so these are taken up together for discussion.

It is the specific allegation of the Complainant that after purchase and completion of all formalities thereof, the Complainant found that there was a discrepancy between the loan account statement and the other documents. The total cost of the vehicle is Rs.50,438/-, R.C. charge Rs.5434/- plus insurance charge Rs.4540/- total Rs.60,412. But the OP illegally received Rs.73,419/-. So the OP took excess Rs.13,007/-. The Complainant informed the said matter to the OP demanding to return the excess amount charge by the OP. But the OP did not return the money. So, the present case is filed.

The OP through their written version stated about the extra charge in the following manner. Broker’s charge for proportion of RLC Rs.1766/-, travelling charge from showroom to main dealer Rs.1000/-, petrol charge Rs.500/- and other charges. So the total charge as per the version of the OP is Rs.3466/-. But the Complainant filed documents vide bill NO.04 dated 20.03.2021 for Rs.50,438/-. Therefore, there is no account for the extra charge of Rs.13,007/-.

The Complainant also proved the certificate of registration of the said vehicle, document of the insurance policy of the said two wheeler. He also proved a complaint letter dated 22.03.2022 to the OP for settlement of the said dispute. The documents proved by the Complainant also discloses that the matter was referred to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice at Cooch Behar for settlement of the dispute.

So all the documents are duly proved by the Complainant. The OP could not substantiate the defence case of claiming extra amount of Rs.13007/-. This misdeeds of the OP tantamounts to deficiency in service.

Accordingly, the case of the Complainant stands well proved.

So, Points No.2 & 3 are decided in favour of the Complainant.

Consequently the complaint case succeeds on contest with cost.

Hence, it is

Ordered

That the complaint case No. CC/44/2022 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with cost Rs.5,000/-.

The Complainant do get an award for Rs.13,007/- for the excess amount, Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.

The OP is directed to pay Rs.38,007/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the Final Order failing which the entire award shall carry @ 6% interest per annum to be given by the OP.

D.A. to note in the trial Register.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.

The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. RUMPA MANDAL]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SUBHAS CHANDRA GUIN]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.