By Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar., Member :
The case of the complainant is that he purchased one sunny XV petrol car from the opposite party, vide invoice no. VSLB 130000979 dated 17-02-15. The opposite party has realized Rs.10, 000/- as handling charges in this respect. According to the complainant, it is wrong and illegal to realize handling charges. Hence , the complainant has sent a lawyer notice dated 30-04-2015 for which ,the opposite party has filed reply stating that he has not realized any amount as handling charges. The argument of the complainant is that this statement of the opposite party is wrong since, in the proforma invoice dated 7-02-15, it is clearly stated as ‘’Handling charges - Rs.10, 000/-.’’.Since realizing of handling charges is illegal and wrong, the complaint filed with prayers to direct the opposite party to refund the amount, in addition to compensation and costs.
2.In the version filed, the opposite party states that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 19-02-15 and not on 17-02-15, as stated in the complaint. The amount to be realized from the complainant , as per the final settlement was Rs.10,14,941/-, which includes Rs.8,73,866/- as cost ,Rs.70309/- as road tax ,Rs.450/- as registration charge ,Rs.28748/- as insurance charges ,Rs.10,000/- as logistics and delivery charges ,Rs.6629/- as extended warranty charges and Rs.4939/- as accessories charges . However, as per the specific direction from M/S. Nissan Motors, only an amount of Rs.8, 20,000/-, being the cost of the car, has been realized from the complainant .Moreover ,an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- has been reduced from the amount ,as discount and only the balance amount has been realized from the complainant. The complainant has also given the satisfaction note in respect of the deal. Since the cars come in bulk in the stock yard , it is necessary to do servicing ,form polishing ,polishing , test drive etc. before handing over to customers .The actual cost of the above works comes to more than Rs.10,000/- . Rs.10, 000/- is being realized as ‘’Logistics & Delivery Charge ‘’ for the above works done. The amount is not realized from those customers who inform recordically that the above works need not be done. Those works have been done only since the complainant directed to do so and hence the amount realized. Since Rs.53866/- has been reduced towards the cost of the car and since a discount of Rs.1,70,000/- has been given, the matter of Rs.10, 000/- has become irrelevant. Thus, there is no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
3.The points for consideration are
1.Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ?
2.If so , compensation and costs.
4.Evidence consists of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and counter proof affidavit filed by the opposite party. The complainant has filed evidences marked as exhibits P1 to P3 .No documents have been filed as evidence by the opposite party. Ext. P1 is the copy of the proforma invoice dated 7-02-15 issued by the opposite party to the complainant ; Ext. P2 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 30-04015 ; Ext. P3 is the reply of the opposite party to the lawyer notice dated 09-05-15
5.The main argument of the complainant is that an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been realized by the opposite party as Handling charges , which is illegal .The opposite party has admitted that he has realized Rs.10,000/- not as delivery charges but as the cost for servicing ,polishing ,form washing , charges incurred for test drive etc. Even though the actual amount to be incurred for this is more than Rs.10, 000/- the opposite party is realizing only Rs.10, 000/- mentioning as logistic and delivery charges. According to the opposite party, ‘’it is purely an optional expense. When a customer gives instruction that his car may be delivered without doing any works mentioned above, logistic and delivery charges will not be collected.’’ It is thus clear that the opposite party himself is aware the charges should not be collected.
6.We have studied the case in detail .We are of opinion that it is the responsibility of the opposite party/vehicle dealer, to deliver a new vehicle, purchased by a customer from the opposite party’s show room , in neat ,factory fresh condition and the charges collected by him as the price of the car , are inclusive of all the expenses required for the same. Discount is only an offer made by the opposite party, to satisfy the customers , since, in today’s world of aggressive marketing of vehicles and multifarious choices available to purchasers / consumers ,the consumers are in a bargaining position with the dealers. Hence, we cannot accept the view of the opposite party that ‘’ Having availed a discount of Rs.1, 70,000/- , the complainant has no right to challenge the legality of the payment of Rs.10, 000/- as logistic and delivery charges ‘’ since we strongly believe that the vehicle sellers have no right to demand logistic and delivery charges. We consider that the complainant has submitted the right prayer .In this connection, we highlight the dictum laid down by the Hon.High Court, of Delhi in WP© no. 8408 /11 dated 20-04-2012.
7.In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant , in addition to compensation and cost of Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) , within a month of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 31st day of January 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
M.P.Chandrakumar Sheena.V.V. P.K.Sasi, Member Member President.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext.P1 copy of the proforma invoice dated 7-02-15
Ext.P2 copy of the lawyer notice dated 30-04015
Ext.P3 Reply notice dated 09-05-15
Id/-
Member
