SILVER STONE MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MANJU TANDON
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Silver Stone Motors Private Limited
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) VIDE impugned order dated 21.12.2005, the appellant has been directed to refund the excess amount of Rs. 60,000 received by it towards the value of the car Skoda make and Rs. 20,000 as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and Rs. 2,500 as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .
(2.) ADMITTEDLY the invoice issued by the appellant shows the total value of the car as Rs. 10,42,658 whereas the respondent alleges to have paid Rs. 11,02,700 details of which was provided by him in para 3 of the complaint. According to the respondent, she had paid cash amount of Rs. 1,50,000 whereas the appellant states that the cash paid was only Rs. 1 lac. While explaining the value of the car shown in the invoice and the actual payment received by the appellant as per its own version. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that this amount was charged on account of interior in the car provided by the appellant as in the original car, the said interior was not provided by the company. It is further contended that respondent was in a hurry and, therefore, she was told that Rs. 10,000 would be charged extra if she is interested to take the car fitted with interior as the car, the respondent was asking for was not available with the appellant. So far so good, the main dispute is with regard to the cash amount received by the appellant. According to the appellant amount received was Rs. 1 lac whereas the respondent stated in the affidavit before the District Forum that she had paid Rs. 1,50,000.
(3.) SINCE there is no documentary evidence with regard to payment of Rs. 1,50,000 alleged by the respondent and Rs. one lac alleged by the appellant, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the finding of fact returned by the District Forum after considering all the facts and circumstances with regard to the payment of Rs. 1,50,000 in cash.
In terms of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a consumer is entitled to a compensation as to the loss actually suffered by him. Accepting the contention of the Counsel for the appellant with regard to the extra amount of Rs. 10,000 charged by it for providing the interior, we partly allow the appeal by holding that Rs. 50,000 was charged extra by directing the appellant to refund Rs. 50,000 besides Rs. 5,000 towards cost of litigation.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.