Complaint No: 439 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 25.10.2018.
Date of order: 14.09.2023.
Panna Lal age 45 years S/o Sh.Tilak Raj, H.No.482, New Abadi, Shukarpura, Batala, District Gurdaspur. Pin Code-143505
…........Complaiant.
VERSUS
- Bajaj Auto Ltd, Akurdi, Pune, through its Principal Officer. Pin Code - 411035
- Baba Motors, Bye Pass Chowk, Jalandhar Road, Batala, through its Authorized Officer Maninderpal Singh Bal. Pin Code- 143505
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: For the complainant: Sh.Munish Kumar, Advocate.
For the opposite parties: Sh.Balwinder Kumar G.M. with Sh.B.S.Malhi, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President
Panna Lal, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Bajaj Auto Ltd. etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 25.08.2018, complainant purchased a new Platina 100 Alloy ES/ 87112029 Motor Cycle bearing Engine No.PFYRJE92747 and Chassis No.MD2A76AY8JRE72738 for Rs.48,400/- in respect whereof an amount of Rs.48,400/- was duly paid in cash. It is further pleaded that at the time of purchase of above said motor cycle OP No.2 ensured that the insurance of the motorcycle is free of cost. It was alleged that after the payment of Rs.48,400/- was duly paid then employee of OP No.2 has issued the invoice No. VSI101031800296 dated 25.08.2018 for Rs.45,783/- i.e. less than an amount of Rs.2,617 out of Rs.48,400/- which has been paid by complainant. It is further pleaded that when complainant inquired from OP No.2 about the above said difference of amount then OP No.2 told to complainant that an amount of Rs.1,000/- is transportation charges, Rs.315/- is lamination charges and remaining Rs.1302/- is insurance charges. It was further alleged that complainant asked to OP No.2 that at the time of purchase, employee of OP No.2 told to him that the insurance is free of cost then OP No.2 replied that the actual rate of above said motorcycle is Rs.47,085/- but I have to show/issue the invoice of Rs.45,783/- just to claim the insurance charges from the OP No.1. It is further pleaded that complainant further asked OP No.2 that to issue the bill of an amount of Rs.1,000/- of transportation charges, Rs.315/- of lamination charges but OP No.2 refused to issue the same. It was further alleged that the complainant again asked for the charges of registration certificate of motorcycle then OP No.2 demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/-. It is further pleaded that Complainant told that there is 6% tax to be paid for registration certificate then why you are charging such amount then OP No.2 replied that in the Sub Divisional Magistrate office, he has to pay the bribe for getting the registration certificate. It is further pleaded that Complainant again disclosed that he will pay the tax of motorcycle through OP No.2 by online and complainant will do himself, the remaining work regarding the preparing of the registration certificate but OP No.2 refused to pay the tax of motorcycle online and demanded illegal amount of Rs.5,000/- for the preparation of registration certificate. It was further alleged that thereafter the complainant time and again contacted the OP No.2 so many times for paying tax of motorcycle by online through OP No.2 as the clerk of SDM office has told the complainant that the tax has to be paid through agency i.e. OP No.2 by online and on all such occasions the OP No.2 dilly delayed the matter on one pretext or another. It is further pleaded that Complainant being gravely upset with the act and conduct of the OP No.2 had no option, but to dance to his tunes. It was further alleged that thereafter instead of doing the needful the OP No.2 maintained a stubborn silence and the OP No.2 was not ready to pay the online tax of motorcycle of the complainant. It is further pleaded that fact remain that the OP No.2 was/is duty bound to pay the tax of the motorcycle as above mention and to issue the bill of remaining amount of Rs.2,617 which was paid by the complainant. It is further pleaded that OP No.2 is doing the malpractice in the business by claiming illegal amount form the general public including complainant. It was further alleged that due to the detailed facts above stated the complainant was subjected to tremendous mental as well as physical torture and harassment by the opposite parties for not getting the unaccountable amount of Rs.2,617 and refused to pay the tax of the above said motorcycle of the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to immediately make payment of the sum of Rs.2,617/-, above stated, which are taken by the OP No. 2, illegal by misrepresentation from complainant, along with future interest @ 18%, from the date of the amount paid by the complainant, till its realization and give the registration certificate of above mentioned motorcycle after getting the actual tax and fee and Rs.20,000/- on account of damages for causing tremendous mental as well as physical harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply, stating therein that the complainant purchased a new Platina 100 alloy ES Motor cycle from the OP No.2 but it is wrong that he purchased the same for Rs.48,400/- as alleged. It was submitted that the actual price of the Motor Cycle Platina 100 ES is Rs.47,085/-. It is further pleaded that as per the Company Circular CIR/MC/HO/MKT/2018 - 276/0701 dated 1st July, 2018 the charges Rs.1302/- of Insurance are to be deducted from the actual price of the Motor Cycle and then the cover note of the Insurance worth Rs.1302/- was issued to the complainant free of cost. It was pleaded that the customer is entitled to free Insurance only once and not twice , as such it is crystal clear that the customer made the payment of the actual cost of the Motor cycle i.e. Rs.47,085/- only. It was further pleaded that it is wrong that the complainant paid Rs.48,400/- as alleged in the complaint. It is denied that he paid excess amount Rs.2617/- as alleged. It is further denied that Rs.1000/- and Rs.315/- has been charged from the consumer/complainant as Transportation charges and Lamination charges respectively as alleged in this complaint. It was further denied that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was demanded from the complainant as Registration charges of the Motor Cycle as alleged. It is further pleaded that the complainant paid the actual cost of the Registration/Tax which was paid online to the Punjab Govt. and then the File for Registration of this Motor Cycle along with the receipt of the Tax paid was handed over to the complainant and he himself received the Registration Certificate from the concerned Registering Authority Motors.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Panna Lal, (Complainant) as Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Maninderjit Singh Bal, (Proprietor of M/s Baba Motors, Batala, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-3.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments filed by the opposite parties but not filed by the complaint.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant purchased one motorcycle by making payment of Rs.48,400/- to the opposite party No.2. However, opposite party No.2 had issued invoice by mentioning the amount of Rs.45,783/-. It is further argued that insurance was free of cost as per the prevalent scheme at that time and as such opposite party No.2 received excess amount of Rs.2617/- form the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.
9. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant paid only Rs.47085/- and insurance of motorcycle was issued free of cost and complainant again paid only actual price of the motorcycle i.e. Rs.47085/- and charges of insurance i.e. Rs.1302/- deducted from the actual price of the motorcycle and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. We have heard the Ld. counsels of for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased one motorcycle manufactured by opposite party No.1 and sold by opposite party No.2. It is further admitted fact that amount of price of motorcycle shown as Rs.45,783.04 P. in tax invoice Ex.C2. The plea of the opposite parties regarding receipt of excess amount on the basis of circular of the company is totally uncalled far as it is nowhere proved that the circular was ever supplied to the complainant and the complainant is in no way bound by the circular, as the same is matter between the manufacturer and dealer. Accordingly, receipt of excess amount of Rs.2617/- by opposite party No.2 amounts to deficiency in service.
11. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2617/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 25.10.2018 i.e. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization alongwith costs of Rs.1,000/- for mental tension and harassment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Sept. 14, 2023 Member.
*YP*
