AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Surat Ram Maurya,Presiding Member
Heard Mr. Braj Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Above revision has been filed against the order of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, dated 15.02.2023, passed in First Appeal No.952 of 2022 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gorakhpur, dated 02.08.2022 passed in CC/281/2014), whereby District Commission has allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners (the opposite parties) to return Rs.61637/- with interest @7% per annum from 09.09.2014 till the date of payment, pay compensation of Rs.75000/-, for mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10000/-. Out of which, the opposite parties would receive back Rs.27294/- and State Commission has dismissed the appeal.
The office has reported 27 days delay in filing the revision. The petitioners have filed IA/7884/2023, for condoning the delay. Subject to objection of the respondent, delay in filing the revision is condoned and the revision was heard on admission.
The respondent filed CC/281/2014 for directing the petitioners to (i) return Rs.62594/-, the excess amount taken from her; (ii) pay Rs.150000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) Pay Rs.20000/-, as litigation costs; and (iv) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The complainant stated that she took a quotation from the opposite parties for purchasing Maruti Alto K-10 car on 20.06.2013. As per quotation, she gave a bank draft of Rs.413975/- to representative of the opposite parties on 22.06.2013. The opposite parties gave an advertisement on 22.06.2013, in newspaper ‘Hindustan Times’ that there was a discount of Rs.48000/- on Maruti Alto K-10 car. The complainant approached the opposite parties and pointed out to the advertisement of discount. Then the opposite parties assured that excess amount would be refunded. The representative of the opposite parties deposited the bank draft on 25.06.2013 and the opposite parties delivered the car on 25.06.2013 at 18:00 hours along with Receipt of bank draft, Sale Invoice of the vehicle and Insurance paper and called her after 2-4 days for Registration Certificate and Accidental Warranty. Later on the husband of the complainant went to the shop of the opposite parties and they handed over Registration Certificate and Accidental Warranty paper. When the husband of the complainant demanded for refund of Rs.48000/-, he was told that opposite parties-2 and 3 were not there as such this money would be handed over to his house later on. When the money was not handed over, the husband of the complainant made a call to the representative of the opposite parties on 30.06.2013, who did not give any satisfactory reply. As per Invoice, actual cost of the vehicle was Rs.329748/-. The complainant gave a letter dated 02.07.2013 to the opposite parties for refund of excess amount. The husband of the complainant got fitted a remote lock in the vehicle on 09.07.2013 at the shop of the opposite parties after paying Rs.4000/-. At that time also, he inquired about refund of her excess amount. The husband of the complainant tried to give a letter dated 12.07.2013, for refund to the opposite parties, which was not received by the employees of the opposite parties and they misbehaved with her husband and threatened for life. Opposite party-1 sent a letter dated 17.07.2013 stating that the excess amount of Rs.27294/- would be refunded later on but they did not respond thereafter. The complainant lodged complaints on toll free number of Maruti Udyog on 03.07.2013, 06.08.2013 and 29.08.2013 but all the time a false message was sent on the mobile and the complaint was disposed off. The opposite parties later on bifurcated the discount of Rs.48000/- in four heads i.e. (i) Rs.22000/-, as general discount to all the customers; (ii) Rs.10000/- to the customers, who were exchanging their old vehicle with a new vehicle; (iii) Rs.8000/- to the persons of military service and (iv) Rs.8000/- to the customers, who had taken loan from HDFC Bank. The complainant gave a bank draft of Rs.413975/- but as per Sale Invoice total price was Rs.375381/-. The complainant was entitled for refund of Rs.38594/- (excess) and Rs.24000/- towards discount. On these allegations, the complaint was filed.
The petitioners filed their written reply and contested the complaint. The petitioners stated that the quotation of Rs.418910/- was given. After deduction of Rs.4935/- for the accessories, the complainant paid a bank draft of Rs.413975/-. After adjusting discount, the opposite parties sent Rs.27294/- through cheque to the complainant on 30.07.2013 but she refused this amount and was claiming Rs.48000/-. The discount of Rs.48000/- was in four heads i.e. (i) Rs.22000/-, as general discount to all the customers; (ii) Rs.10000/- to the customers, who were exchanging their old vehicle with a new vehicle; (iii) Rs.8000/- to the persons of military service and (iv) Rs.8000/- to the customers, who had taken loan from HDFC Bank. The complainant filed a FIR against the opposite parties. The opposite parties approached High Court for quashing the FIR. High Court directed to refund the amount of Rs.27294/- as such the opposite parties sent a demand draft of Rs.27294/- to the complainant on 03.10.2013, through registered post. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
District Commission, in its judgment dated 02.08.2022 found that in the quotation, Rs.358998/- was mentioned as price of the car, Rs.30270/- as Registration charges, Rs.15508/- as Insurance charges, Rs.4449/- as Extended Warranty, Rs.2800/- as Teflon Coating, Rs.1950/- as Anti Rust Treatment and Rs.4935/- as Accessories (total Rs.418910/-). After reducing cost of the accessories, the complainant deposited Rs.413975/-. In Sale Invoice, price of the car was mentioned as Rs.329748/-. The opposite parties took extra Rs.29250/- towards price of the car, Rs.3382/- towards Registration, Rs.1124/- towards, Insurance. In Maruti Alto car, Teflon coating of Rs.2800/- and Anti rust Treatment of Rs.1950/- were not payable. Logistic charge of Rs.5250/- was not payable. Thus total excess Rs.37637/- was charged. Admittedly the complainant was entitled to discount of Rs.24000/-. As such, the opposite parties were liable to refund Rs.61637. On these finding the complaint was allowed. State Commission, in its judgment dated 15.02.2023 upheld the order of District Commission and dismissed the appeal.
I have examined the quotation, sale invoice, Insurance paper and Registration Certificate. Findings of the both the Commissions excess charges do not suffer from any illegality. The petitioners could not contradict the above findings of the foras below. Thus unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties was proved. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two foras below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
O R D E R
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition has no merit and is dismissed.