State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Samta Motors Pvt. Ltd. 119/8 Mile Stones ... vs 1.Raj Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Phulla Ram, ... on 17 December, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.260 of 2012 Date of Institution: 23.02.2012 Date of Decision: 17.12.2012 Samta Motors Pvt. Ltd. 119/8 Mile Stones G.T. Road, Karnal through its proprietor/Director. Appellant (OP-1) Versus 1. Raj Kumar Saini son of Shri Phulla Ram, R/o H.No.1646, sector-5, Urban Estate, Karnal. Respondent (complainant) 2. The Managing Director, Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Regd. Office and Factory, Plot No.IH-I, SIPCOT, Industrial Park, Irrungatukootai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, District Kancheepuram, Tamilnadu. Respondent (OP-2) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Munish Mittal, Advocate for appellant. Respondent exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 23.01.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Karnal whereby complaint bearing No.849/2009 filed by complainant (respondent herein) was accepted on the following terms:-
we direct the OP No.1 to make the payment of Rs.15000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.3000/- for the harassment caused to him. The present complaint is accepted accordingly. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the complainant (respondent No.1) had approached the appellant-opposite party No.1 on 07.10.2009 for purchasing Hyundai Santro Xing GLS F/L E-3, manufactured by opposite party No.2. Opposite Party No.1 had demanded Rs.3,53,000/- as retail price of the car besides Rs.400/- for temporary registration, being the retail price prevalent on the day and insurance coverage and accessories were provided free of cost. But at the time of giving title documents for registration purpose, the retail price as inscribed in the Retail invoice was Rs.3,38,000/- instead of Rs.3,53,000/-, meaning thereby the opposite party No.1 charged Rs.15,000/- in excess from the complainant. complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to refund the excess price of Rs.15,000/- but the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant even despite written complaint sent through Email on 19.10.2009 to opposite party No.2 and subsequent legal notice dated 02.12.2009. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing complaint.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement stated that it had charged a sum of Rs.3,53,000/- from the complainant without extended warranty as costs of the car, plus insurance and accessory package. It was denied that the insurance cover and accessory were provided free of costs in the cost of the retail invoice. The complainant had signed the invoice and delivery receipt besides two other documents relating to the insurance and accessory package. Thus, denying the claim of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite Party No.2 in its separate written statement supported the version of the opposite party No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party No.1 as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite party No.1 has come up in appeal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
The perusal of the impugned order reflects that District Forum while disposing of the complaint relied upon document Ex.C-1 reproduced as under:-
To M/s Samta Motors Pvt. Ltd.
GT Road, Karnal.
Details of discount of Rs.15761/- in the bill No.0630 dated 7.10.2009 alongwith details given to me have been explained below:
i) Rs.9336 on account of insurance paid by you.
ii) Rs.6425/- Accessories received free of cost basis with the car out of which Rs.15000/- received and balance 761/- adjusted.
The above mentioned document Ex.C-1 established that the retail price of the vehicle was Rs.3,38,000/-. Ex.C-1 was got signed by the opposite party No.1 from the complainant. Thus, keeping in view the above said document it is established on the record that the opposite party No.1 had charged the excess price of the car to the extent of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, no case to interfere with the order of the District Forum is made out.
Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.10,300/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 17.12.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member