Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/23

Bhupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

CM Auto Sales (P) Limited & Another - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. N.K. Soni, Adv

25 May 2015

ORDER

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Bhupinder Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To return the excess amount charged from him i.e. Rs.11,670/-, 

ii)      To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment caused to him,

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost,

iv)     To pay interest @12% P.A. on the above said amounts till realization.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Swift VDI BSIV-SMRDCD3 car, bearing chassis No. NA3FHE81S00782526, engine No. D3A-2492044, from the O.P. No. 1 vide invoice No. VSL 14000449 dated 9.12.2014 and paid the full amount of Rs.6,51,286/- (a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was got financed from PNB, Kurali Road, Ropar, a sum of Rs.2000/- was paid in advance and a sum of Rs.1,99,286/- was paid at the time of delivery of the car, including the charges for insurance policy). Although, the O.P. No. 1 had received a sum of Rs.6,51,286/- from him, yet it issued the bill worth Rs.6,15,134/-. After including the insurance charges of Rs.24,482/- in the said amount, the total amount comes to Rs.6,39,616/-, but the O.P. No. 1 had received a sum of Rs.6,51,286/- i.e. Rs.11670/-, in excess, from him illegally. He had requested the O.P. No.1 many times to return the said amount, but of no use. The O.Ps. are, thus, deficient in rendering service and have adopted unfair trade practice, due to which he has suffered mentally as well as financially. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. No.1 filed written statement in the shape of affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Chand, HR, taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering O.P. & the same is liable to be dismissed under all the circumstances; that the answering O.P. has been unnecessarily dragged into this false & frivolous litigation, as there has been no deficiency in service on its part. On merits, it is admitted that the price of the car in question was Rs.6,15,134/-. It is stated that an amount of Rs.200/- was charged for temporary number plate, an amount of Rs.24482/- was charged as insurance charges, an amount of Rs.2970/- was charged for accessories, and an amount of Rs.8500/- was charged on account of optional extended warranty for third & fourth year, for which the complainant had himself opted, thus, the total amount came to Rs.6,51,286/-. Against the said amount, the answering O.P. had received a sum of Rs.2000/- as advance booking, Rs.1,99,286/- at the time of delivery of the car and an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was financed by the  PNB, thus, in total received a sum of Rs.6,51,286/- from the complainant. It was well within the knowledge of the complainant that the charges of accessories were extra and he himself had opted for the extended warranty, for which a sum of Rs.8500/- was charged from him. Thus, nothing was charged in excess from him and nothing is due towards the answering O.P. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof against the answering O.P. with costs, it being without any merit.

 

4.                The O.P. No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.4.2015.

 

 5.               On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10  and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Chand, HR, CM Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Ex.OP-1, photocopies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the contesting O.P. No. 1 and gone through the record of the file, carefully.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on 9.12.2014, the complainant purchased the car in question from O.P. No.1, who had issued invoice/bill(Ex.C2) for a sum of Rs.6,15,134/-. He also got the said car insured through the O.P. No.1, for which he was to pay a sum of Rs.24482/- towards insurance premium, thus, in total, he was to pay a sum of Rs.6,39,616/-, whereas the O.P. No.1 had received a sum of  Rs.6,51,286/-. In this way, the O.P. No. 1 had charged a sum of Rs.11,670/- in excess from him. He requested the said O.P. for many times for refund of the said amount, but it refuted to his request.  Hence, the O.P. No.1 is deficient in rendering service, therefore, it be directed to refund the excess amount charged from him alongwith interest, and also to pay compensation for mental agony & harassment caused to him and also the litigation expenses.

 

8.                On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 vehemently argued that a sum of Rs.6,51,282/- was rightly received from the complainant i.e. a sum of Rs.6,15,134/- as price of the car, Rs. 200/- as temporary number plate, a sum of Rs.24482/- as insurance charges, Rs.2970 for the accessories installed in the said car and a sum of Rs.8500/- was charged on account of optional extended warranty for third and fourth year, for which the complainant himself had opted. Therefore, the complaint being meritless be dismissed with cost.

 

9.                It is an admitted fact that the O.P. No.1 had charged a sum of Rs.6,51,282/- from the complainant in lieu of the car purchased by him. From the Invoice, Ex. C2, it is evident that the O.P. No.1 had charged Rs.6,15,134/- as price of the car. From the policy document, Ex. C3, it is apparent that the amount of insurance premium was Rs.24,482/-. From the copy of Pick List (Retail) Ex. OP6, it is evident that accessories were got fitted in the car in question by the complainant for a sum of Rs.2970/-. Nodoubt, perusal of the copy of the ledger account, (Ex. OP-2) which pertains to Sh. Bhupinder Singh, complainant for the period from 1.4.2014 to 13.12.2014, it is evident that there is an entry of Rs.8500/-, having voucher No.13289 in respect of optional extended warranty third & fourth year, but the O.P. has not placed on record the copy of any voucher/invoice vide which the said amount was charged from the complainant. Even no document has been produced by the O.P. No.1 to prove that the complainant had opted for the extended warranty and actually, the same was provided to him. Thus, in the absence of any cogent & convincing document, the plea of the O.P. No. 1 that it had provided the optional extended warranty to the complainant at his request is not sustainable. Consequently, the O.P. No.1 is liable to refund the said amount of Rs.8500/- to the complainant, allegedly charged on account of optional extended warranty, alongwith interest from the date of invoice i.e. 9.12.2014 till realization. The O.P. No.1 is also liable to pay compensation for the mental agony & physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

 

10.              Nodoubt, the complainant has also impeladed CM Auto Sales, Mohali, as O.P. No. 2 in the array of the O.Ps., but neither any allegation against it has been made in the complaint nor any specific relief against it has been sought, therefore, the complaint against O.P. No. 2 is also liable to be dismissed.

 

11.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against the O.P. No. 2 and partly allow the same against the O.P. No. 1 with the direction in the following manner:-

i)       To refund the amount of Rs.8500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 9.12.2014 till realization;

ii)      To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation;

 iii)    To pay another sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The O.P. No. 1 is further directed to comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

12.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

00%;R;