Back
K.S.P
A-18-908
Page 1 of 4
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Court-3
APPEAL NO. 908 of 2018 Dt: 07.04.2021
Landmark Honda
Landmark Automobiles Private Ltd.
Signature Building, Nr. Iskon Mall,
Surat.
…Appellant
Vs.
Akruti Ramavtar Dalmia
301, Sanstuti Apartment, Vesu
...Respondent
Appearance: Mr. C. R. Kokhari, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant
Coram: (Shri S. N. Vakil, Member)
(Smt. J. Y. Shukla, Member)
Order by Shri S. N. Vakil, Member
1. This is Opponent’s Appeal.
2. The Complainant – Akruti Dalmia filed Consumer Complaint No. 123 of
2018 with CDRF, Surat (Main) that she purchased Honda WR-V from
the Opponent Landmark Automobiles Private Ltd. for Rs. 9,97,000/- on
06.10.2017, total costs of the car was 10,32,244/-. She was given bills/
invoices for the car at Rs. 8,94,9338/-, insurance for Rs. 20,070/-, RTO
Tax for Rs. 43,898/-, and SMC Tax for Rs. 17,887/-, totaling to Rs.
9,76,193/-. After the delivery of the car when she just went 5 Kms away
found that Km was not working, there was burning sensation in bonnet,
average, Kilometers, clock, petrol signs were not working. On desk
Details
DD
MM
YY
Date of Judgment
07 04
2021 Date of filling
01 11
2018 Duration
27 02
K.S.P
A-18-908
Page 2 of 4
board, dicky handle was broken, 1st and 2nd gears are not working
properly. When she asked for log book of car to see Kilometer of
delivered car, they denied to give the same. Therefore, for this deficiency
she claims excess amount of Rs. 29,767/-, replace of the vehicle with
the new car and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.
3. The CDRF, Surat (main) by its ex-parte judgment and order dated
10.09.2018 allowed the complaint, the opponent remaining absent
though served, ordered the opponent to pay Rs. 29,767/- with 9%
interest from the date of application dated 13.03.2016, Rs. 3,000/-
towards mental pain and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs.
4. Being aggrieved by the same the opponent has preferred this appeal.
5. Heard Advocate Shri C. R. Kothari for the appellant, and read written
arguments for the respondent.
6. Complainant’s notice to the appellant dated 30.11.2017 gives breakup of
charge, the excess amount that is lying with the appellant, as follows:
Sr. No.
Particulars
Charged
Actually Paid
Extra Charged
From Us
Invoice
906872 894338
12534 2
Insurance
26558 20070
6488 3
RTO
46480 43898
2582 4
SMC Tax
18137 17887
250 5
Total
998047 976103
21854
7. As per the account statement of the complainant with the appellant
shows that the complainant paid Rs. 11,000/- on 03.10.2017,
1,87,350/- on 06.10.2017, both by cheque and Rs. 7,92,907/- by RTGC
from the bank dated 07.10.2017, totaling to Rs. 9,91,257/-. The
complainant pointed out that instead of loan amount of Rs. 7,97,250/-
K.S.P
A-18-908
Page 3 of 4
from the Kotak Mahindra Bank, only Rs. 7,92,907/- is shown in dealer’s
account, leaving the account of Rs. 4,343/-. Now the dealer has
produced release order by Kotak Mahindra bank wherein to show that
only Rs. 7,92,907/- was released and paid by RTGS to the complainant.
To arrive at the figure of extra charge the claimant has put the figures
as charged from the quotation only i.e. sales contract (page-40), which is
not proper as she in fact paid only Rs. 9,91,257/-. Therefore, it is clear
that the amount shown to have been charged extra is not the fact.
Complainants account statement with the dealer as aforesaid also
shows that she was returned back Rs. 7,920/- through NEFT on
18.10.2017. Therefore there does not remain anything to be paid to the
complainant and that grievance is devoid of merit in this regard.
8. The Forum also did not adjudicate on the point and the complainant
has not stated anything here also about the mechanical defects as
alleged in the complaint. Therefore that part of the complaint is not
required to be adjudicated.
9. For th
