MORANI HYUNDAI Vs. YATINDER PARKASH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1611/2011, "M/s. Morani Hyundai Morani Cars Pvt. Ltd. versus Yatinder Parkash Sharma" and FA No. 1612/2011, "Yatinder Parkash Sharma versus M/s. Morani Hyundai Morani Cars Pvt. Ltd." and orders dated 10.07.2013 passed in M.A. no. 32/2013 in both these appeals. These two appeals were preferred against the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur allowing the consumer complaint in question. Through impugned order, the appeal filed by the OP/Petitioner was dismissed and the appeal filed by the complainant was allowed and the amount of compensation awarded to the complainant was enhanced.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Yatinder Parkash Sharma purchased a Hyundai Santro Car from the petitioner/OP on 09.03.2009 for a consideration of Rs.3,60,306/-. It has been alleged in the complainant that the actual purchase date was 09.03.2009, but the petitioner/OP issued the bill on 12.03.2009 and the insurance risk cover was also issued on 09.03.2009. The whole payment and tax was received by the OP on 09.03.2009, but the registration certificate was prepared on 13.03.2009 and given to the complainant after one and a half months. The complainant alleged that the total cost of the car including the registration amount comes to Rs.3,74,746/- but the OP received an amount of Rs.3,87,000/- meaning thereby that an excess amount of Rs.12,254/- was charged from the complainant. The complainant is also liable to receive an excess amount of Rs.18,015/- from the OP on account of insurance risk cover. The complainant demanded the refund of excess amount of Rs.12,254/- and insurance risk cover amount of Rs.18,015/- along with Rs.3,00,000/- for physical, mental, financial damages from the OP. The District Forum allowed the complaint vide their order dated 20.06.2011 and ordered the OP to pay excess amount of Rs.12,254/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation, Rs.5,000/- for harassment and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. Two appeals were preferred against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission; the appeal filed by the OP was dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2012, whereas the appeal of the complainant was accepted and the OP was directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,254/- for excess amount charged, Rs.18,015/- for insurance risk cover, Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation with interest @9% p.a. from the date of complaint, i.e., 25.06.2009.

(3.) It is made out from record that the present petitioner/OP filed application dated 30.11.2012 before the State Commission for amendment of the order dated 27.08.2012 but the said application was dismissed on 14.12.2012 by the State Commission as none was present before the State Commission on that date. An application was filed by the petitioner/OP again before the State Commission on 06.03.2013 requesting for recalling the order dated 14.12.2012. The said application was dismissed on 22.04.2013 since the petitioner was not present before the State Commission on that date. Still another application was filed on 06.05.2013 before the State Commission for recall of the orders dated 14.12.2012 and 22.04.2013, but the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.07.2013. It has been observed by the State Commission in their order dated 10.07.2013 that if the petitioner had any objection regarding the order dated 28.07.2012, he should have gone before the National Commission by way of revision petition. The State Commission also imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner.