ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Parties (herein referred in short as O.Ps) alleging the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in collecting Rs.4,500/- as delivery charges and not refunding the same inspite of notice and for refund of the same with interest at 12% per annum, and in the alternative to provide voucher for the same and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for harassment, mental torture and agony  caused to him, and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses and to  pass such other reliefs as this forum deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that: the 2^nd OP is the manufacturer of RENAULT KWID RXT Car and OP.No.1 is the Authorized Dealer in selling the product of Op.No.2.

3.     It is contended that the complainant on  09.08.2016 purchased the car RENAULT KWID RXT(O) from Op.No.1 by paying a sum of Rs.4,82,772/-.  He found that a sum of Rs.4,500/- has been collected him as delivery charges by OP.No.1.  On 13 08.2016 he questioned the same and demanded for return of the same, as Op.No.1 cannot collect the said amount. He has corresponded through email and over telephone. OP.No.2 ensured that it would give credit note in respect of the said amount of Rs.4,500/- by admitting that OP.No.1 has incorrectly charged the delivery charges. But it did not give the credit note or refunded the said amount. He had issued a demand letter to the OP, demanding the refund along with interest @ 10% thereon.

4.     One Rajath Nigam working with Op.No.2 contacted him over phone on 20.03.2018 and expressed his willingness to issue a voucher to the value of Rs.5,000/- which could be redeemed in future, while servicing of the car and further he assured that he would discuss the matter of issuing the voucher with the Op.No.2. Whereas ultimately, OP.No.2 rejected the request. Hence he had to issue legal notice to OPs for refund of the same.  Charging of delivery charges is unwarranted and illegal and not sustainable in law.  Grave and irreparable damage has been caused to him due to non-refund of the amount. Hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of OP.No.1 and 2 and hence prayed the forum to allow the complaint.

5.     Upon service of notice OP.No.1 remained absent. Afterwards OP.No.2 filed an application to set aside the exparte order and sought permission of the forum to contest the case and the same was allowed. It filed its written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable against it and it is wholly misconceived, vexatious, misleading, misrepresented, unsustainable, false and frivolous and is abuse of process of law. There is no role on the part of OP.No.2 in respect of sale and service of the vehicle. No case has been made out against it under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and it is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the proceeding but admitted that the complainant purchased a car from OP No.1 who is a dealer of it and entered into dealership agreement. OP.No.2 is only a manufacturer and it is not responsible or liable for acts done by the service center or the dealer.

6.     The service center or dealer if has committed deficiency is to be held responsible.   Only any manufacturing defect found in the vehicle the manufacturer is to be held liable.  It has denied all the allegations made in each and every para of the complaint, and prayed forum to dismiss the complaint.

7.     In order to prove the case, complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents. OP No.2 inspite of getting sufficient opportunity did not enter into the witness box and filed its affidavit evidence and the documents.  Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the Complainant has proved  

    deficiency in service on the part of the      

    Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the Complainant is entitled to

   the relief prayed for in the complaint?

8.     WE ANSWER:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative.

POINT NO.2 :           Partly in the Affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

9.     On perusing the complaint, version filed by respective parties and evidence and the documents by complaint. It is clear that complainant on  09.08.2016 purchased the car RENAULT KWID RXT(O) from Op.No.1 by paying a sum of Rs.4,82,772/-.  He found that a sum of Rs.4,500/- has been received by him as delivery charges by Op.No.1.  On 13.08.2016 he questioned the same and demanded for return of the same, as Op.No.1 cannot collect the said amount.

10.   OP.No.2 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and OP.No.1 is the authorized agent to sell the same.  The said documents are produced. In Ex.P1 to P18 documents produced which are receipts, invoices, RC, the e-payment receipt for having paid the tax, it becomes clear that OP.No.1 has collected Rs.4,500/- as delivery charges and the same is mentioned in EX-P5 the debit note and ExP6 and has also collected insurance premium road tax, cost of  number plate and output WAT totaling Rs.78,437/-.

11.   The Complainant has filed various decisions rendered by  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai – PAGE (1) wherein it is clearly held that collecting any amount from the customer other than cost of the vehicle actual registration charges, would amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
 

12.   Further in the case decided by the HON’BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB  IN MANISH KUMAR GOYAL vs DADA MOTORS held that  “The dealer cannot charge logistic charges unless  is authorized  under the provisions of law. Charging of logistic charges in an arbitrary manner clearly amounts to adoption of unfair practice and the charges have been charged in an unauthorized illegal manner rather it can be said overcharging is nothing but hidden charges.”

13. In Page (10) – HON’BLE DELHI HIGH COURT in C.RAJARAM Vs GNCT Of DELHI AND OTHERS have held that:- “Receiving of any extra amount or charging of extra amount for the vehicle dealer for getting it registered is violation of law  which was affirmed by supreme court in Special Leave Appeal No. 2629/2012.

14.   In view of the above decisions and as per the invoice OP No.1 has collected delivery charges of Rs.4,500/- from the complainant which is clear violation of law and unfair trade practice and also amounts to unlawfully enriching itself. Hence we are of the opinion, there is unfair trade practis which means enriching oneself.   Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO.2

15.   The Complainant has sought refund of the amount of Rs.4,500/- collected by OP.No.1 along with interest @ 12% per annum and in the alternate, to provide voucher for the said amount. He has also claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses. We feel that this prayer is highly exaggerated. No substantial evidence is placed as to how he is claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental sufferance, when the amount of claim is itself is very meager one. The rational behind awarding compensation is just proper and reasonable and it should not be a burden for the other side and at the same time, it should not be a fortune to the complainant. In the result, due to the non-refunding of the delivery charges collected, the complainant has been put to mental sufferance and agony. Considering the facts and over all circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damages and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses if awarded would meet the ends of justice.

16.   In view of the above judgments, and the contention taken by OP.No.2 that it is only the manufacturer and no way connected with receiving the delivery charges, since OP.No.1 is the dealer who has  collected the said delivery charges, it is OP.No.1 who is responsible for refunding the same as ordered above. No liability can be fastened against Op.No.2 since it is only the manufacturer of the vehicle who gave the same to be sold through OP.No.1 who is the authorized dealer. Hence we answer POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:-  

ORDER

1. The Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. OP No.1 i.e. TRIDENT AUTO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., Represented by its Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.4,500/- to the Complainant along with interest at 12% per annum the date of sale of the vehicle i.e. 09.08.2016 till the date of payment of entire amount.
3. Further OP No.1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damages and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigations expenses.
4. Complaint against OP.No.2 is hereby dismissed.
5. The O.P No.1 is hereby directed to comply the above order at within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be destroyed as per the C.P. Act and Rules thereon.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 27^th JUNE 2019)

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of Price list mentioning for delivery charges.

Ex P2: Copy receipt dated 11.06.2016 issued by OP.No.1.

Ex P3:Copy of Receipt dated 08.08.2016 issued by OP.No.1.

Ex P4:Copy of Receipt dated 08.08.2016 issued by OP.No.1.

Ex P5:Copy of debit note dated 09.08.2016 issued by OP.1.

Ex P6: Copy of Tax Invoice dated 09.08.2016.

Ex P7: Copy of e-payment receipt (Tax) dated 09.08.2016.

Ex P8: Copy certificate of Registration of the car.

Ex P9: Email dated 13.08.2016 sent by the complainant to OP.

Ex P10: Copy of Demand Letter dated 20.03.2018.

Ex P11:Copy of RPAD receipts of the Demand letter.

Ex P12:Copy of confirmation letter.

Ex P13:Copy of clarification email dated 28.3.2018.

Ex P14: Copy of email dated 03.04.2018 sent to the OP.No.1.

Ex P15: Copy of reminder letter dated:11.04.2018.

Ex P16: Copy of RPAD receipts.

Ex P17: Copy of confirmation of deliver of the reminder.

Ex P18: Copy of the complaint details of the complaint No.679547.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Ms Abha Tiwari, Senior Legal Manager of Ops.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the dealership agreement.

MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

A*