SMT. S. S. ALI
The complainant’s case may be briefly stated as follows:-
The complainant, Sri Milan Kumar Dey purchased a Challenger 13+ B.S.III of Force Motors Ltd. by taking loan from Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Jukhia bazar branch from the said OP, who is the dealer of Force Motors. The complainant booked the vehicle by paying Rs. 50,000/- by cash on 16-07-2011. The quotation of the said vehicle was Rs. 5,24,484/- dt. 15-07-2011. The complainant took delivery of the said vehicle by paying a sum of Rs. 5,41,859/- on 25-07-2011. The vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant being no. WB-29A/4066 which was done by the OP. According to the complainant the OP intentionally registered the said vehicle as ‘Maxi Cab’ for which the complainant had to pay more tax. Complainant informed the OP to return the excess amount of Rs. 17,375/-, but the OP did not care for it. Lastly on 20-04-2012 the complainant made a complaint before the Ld. Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Purba Medinipur Regional Office and the ld. Affairs requested the OP to settle the matter on 09-10-2012, but till date the OP did nothing. It is alleged further that the OP made unfair trade practice with the complainant for which the complainant has been suffering from mental agony and therefore, he prayed for return of the excess money of Rs. 17,375/- with 10% interest from 25-07-2011 till realization, compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
The OP contested the instant case by filing his written version as well as written notes of argument. According to the OP the instant case is barred by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, and that it was false as alleged by the complainant that the complainant booked the said vehicle by paying Rs. 50,000/- on 16-07-2011 vide quotation of the said vehicle for Rs. 5,24,484/- dt. 15-07-2011 and that on the date of delivery the OP took Rs. 5,41,859/- i.e. on 25-07-2011 by unfair practice or the said vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant bearing no. WB-29A-4066. OP stated that it is one of the renowned dealers of Force Motors Ltd. and runs its business for years after years with great repute and customer satisfaction. The OP states that the complainant approached the OP to buy one Challenger 13+D BS III vehicle as he got subsidy from government under BSKP scheme and as such, he requested the OP to give approximate price of the aforesaid vehicle on the basis of which he could apply for the bank loan and on his request, the OP on 15-07-2011 provided him one Proforma Invoice/quotation including VAT. It is further stated by the OP that on 16-07-2011 the petitioner came to the office/showroom of OP and made booking for one Challenger 13+D BS III vehicle by depositing Rs. 50,000/- as advance money and agreed to take delivery of the same as per price of the dealer on the date of delivery. It is also stated by the OP that after booking of the aforesaid vehicle, the complainant got vehicle loan from local Bangiya Gramin Bikas Bank, Jukhiabazar branch and on 20-07-2011 he paid Rs. 5,24,484/- vide DD no. 38239 dt. 19-07-2011 to the OP for the delivery of the vehicle and petitioner/s total payment stood at Rs. 5,74,484/- and subsequently on 25-07-2011 the petitioner intended to take delivery of the vehicle and enquired about the final invoice. As per query of the petitioner, Op provided him the Final invoice details including rate of vehicle, VAT, registration charges total of which amounting to Rs. 5,41,859/-. Petitioner after careful perusal/examination of the same agreed to take delivery of the vehicle at Rs. 5,35,859/- including VAT/TAX and registration charges of Rs. 6,000/- and as such OP on 25-07-2011 delivered one White Challenger 13+D BS III vehicle (bearing engine no. D27051563, Chassis no. MCID4DFA2BPO16803) diesel with JK tyre and refunded Rs. 32,625/- to the petitioner vide cheque no. 174536 dt. 27-07-2011 and the petitioner gladly accepted the vehicle along with all tools and equipment supplied by the manufacturer without raising any dispute and allegation on the date of delivery from OP. The OP states that the petitioner requested them to provide with a Proforma Invoice where the vehicle price was quoted as Rs. 5,24,484/- including tax as per rate chart/price list of the dealer on that date. Subsequently, the price of the vehicle increased on the date of delivery which stood at Rs. 5,35,859/- (including tax) and petitioner was well aware about the rate of the vehicle on the date of delivery and he voluntarily took delivery of the vehicle in good condition and working order. OP did not charge any excess money for the vehicle and there was no unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as there was no fixation of price of the vehicle and as price always ruling at the time of delivery irrespective of when order is placed or payment made. Moreover, petitioner himself out of his own choice purchased the Challenger 13+D BS III vehicle and signed Form 20 for its registration and as per Government rule, the vehicle was registered as Maxi Cab for which petitioner had to bear the excess tax and for that OP had no liability and intentional involvement as the same is the sole discretion of the Registering Authority who registered the vehicle as per its specification and sitting capacity as prescribed by the manufacturer in Form 22 (Certificate of road worthiness) as per Central Motor Vehicle Rules. The Op alleged that the petitioner, in order to illegally gain some money suppressed the above material fact and made a complaint before the Ld. Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Purba Medinipur with some false, imaginary and baseless statement, but as the petitioner’s claim was illegal, unjust and unfair, it was not possible for them to settle the same. In such circumstances, the OP prayed for dismissal of the instant case.
We have carefully gone through the documents including the petition of complaint as well as WV and WNA filed by the parties.
Two points come up for discussion.
- Whether the OP is guilty of unfair trade practice or not?
- Is the complainant entitled to any relief as prayed for by him?
Decisions with reasons
Point nos. 1 & 2:
For convenience, we take up both the points together for discussion.
From the documents filed by the complainant we find that the OP issued Proforma Invoice quoting the price of vehicle as Rs. 5,24,484/- plus insurance and registration charges. We find from clause no. 5 of the said Proforma Invoice that ‘Equipments specification and prices quoted here in are subject to change without notice’ and the said Proforma Invoice has been accepted by the complainant by putting his signature on the same. From Anx-7 filed by the complainant, issued by the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Jukhia bazar branch dt. 19-07-2011 it appears that the said bank sent an amount of Rs. 5,24,484/- vide DD No. 038239 dt. 19-07-2011 to the OP towards the price of the vehicle in question. Thus we can say that the complainant, at the time of booking of the vehicle as well as taking delivery of the vehicle did not raise any objection regarding the price of the vehicle with the OP. The ld. Advocate of the OP stated that in case of any commodity which does not have any price tag quoted on it, the Proforma Invoice or the Quotation given in respect of said commodity, cannot be termed as the Final Price of the product. In this case the price of the vehicle is/was subject to change as specifically mentioned in the Proforma Invoice and therefore, it cannot be said that OP indulged in any unfair trade practice by realizing the prevailing price of the vehicle in question from the complainant on the date of delivery of the same. If the complainant had any reservation about the additional cost of the vehicle, he could have refused to pay that additional amount. After making the payment, the complainant cannot make a complaint under the Act. If the manufacturer/seller has charged a higher price for the vehicle in violation of the rate contract, that would not constitute a ground for preferring a complaint against the OP under the Consumer Protection Act since there has not been any fixation of the price by any law. In this case though the complainant alleged charging excess money to him by the OP we find that OP refunded a sum of Rs. 32,625/- which the complainant paid in excess.
In terms of section 2(c)(iv) "complaint" means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that a trader or service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the service mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price –
(a) fixed by or under any law for the time being in force
(b) displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods….”
with a view to obtain any relief or benefit under this Act. In the instant case there is no such price tag which could be fixed on the commodity or the article and besides, it is the case of the price of Maxi Cab Challenger 13+D BS III vehicle the price of which has not been fixed by or under any law for the time being in force. The OP, in support of his case has referred to a decision reported in III (1993) CPJ 294 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble Commission has been pleased to hold that “…. when there has not been any fixing of the price or any particular law nor a display of the price on the package containing the goods or on the goods themselves, the Act does not contemplate any complaint being instituted in respect of the price charged for the article on the ground that the price charged for the article is excessive. In the absence of any law requiring any article to be sold or below a price fixed thereunder and when there is no declaration of price on the package containing the goods or on the goods themselves, the Act does not contemplate that a Redressal Forum constituted under its provisions should undertake an investigation of the reasonableness of the price fixation made by the manufacturer, producer or dealer.’ The above observation clearly applies in the present case.
The complainant, before taking delivery of the vehicle had the option to cancel the order and get back the money with interest. But before the delivery was effected, the complainant was informed and he deposited the excess sum of Rs. 32,625/- without any objection which was later refunded to him. Even at the time of taking delivery, he could have refused to pay the additional amount, but after making the payment, in these circumstances, the complainant cannot make the complaint under the Act in the light of the discussion made above. The manufacturer or dealer has not charged any excess amount, rather the dealer has charged the amount which was required for making registration of the car and insofar as it is the sole discretion of the Registering Authority classify as per the details given in Form 22 (Certificate of Roadworthiness) as per Central Motor Vehicle Rules, the dealer cannot be held responsible for the quantum of registration charge and therefore, it cannot be termed as a violation of the rate contract which constitutes as a ground for moving a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Since there has not been any fixation of any price by any Law, hence, the complainant cannot be granted relief by any Forum constituted under the Act.
As such, both the issues are decided against the complainant.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is dismissed against the OP on contest without any cost.
