Haryana

Sonipat

CC/47/2015

KARAMBIR SINGH S/O MANOHAR LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. KANISH MOTORS PVT. LTD.,2. AUDI INDIA DIVISION,3. ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

R.S. RANJAN

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                

                                Complaint No.47 of 2015

                                Instituted on:16.2.2015

                                Date of order:08.10.2015

 

Karambir Singh son of Manohar Lal, r/o 749/26, Arya Nagar, Sonepat.

 

     …Complainant

 

                     VERSUS

 

1.Kanish Motors Pvt. Ltd. Showroom and workshop 113/12 Mile stone,

NH 1, VPO Madhuban, Distt. Karnal through its Director.

2.Audi India Division of Volks Wagen Group Sale India Pvt. Ltd., Silver Utopia, 4tyh floor, Cordinal Gracious road, Chakla, Andheri East Mumbai-400099 through its Director.

3.ICICI Bank, Atlas road, Sonepat through its Manager.

     ……Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. RS Rajan, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Rajesh Dagar, Adv. for respondent no.1.
          Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. for respondent no.2.

           Respondent no.3 ex-parte.

 

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, President.

           Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

           D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased Audi Car which was financed by respondent no.3 and was manufactured by respondent no.2. The respondent no.1 gave assurance for delivery of the vehicle at Sonepat on 15.2.2014. The vehicle was delivered on 15.2.2014.  When the respondent no.1 supplied with original RC of the vehicle, the complainant was shocked to notice that the model/manufacturing year of the vehicle was 2013 whereas he has purchased the vehicle on 15.2.2014. The value of the car supplied by the respondents being one year old model, is less to the tune of Rs.7 lacs and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 appeared and they filed their separate reply, whereas respondent no.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.07.2015.

          In reply, the respondent no.1 has submitted that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, everything was made clear to the complainant particularly about the model of December 2013 and a discount of Rs.588423/- was given to the complainant which is very much clear in retail invoice and the sale certificate was issued being manufacture & year December, 2013 and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

          The respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has signed and given the undertaking to the effect that he has purchased and taken the delivery of car on 15.2.2014 and in the said undertaking, the complainant has clearly mentioned that as per the records, I am buying manufacturing year 2013 car with my consent and I also agree with the terms and conditions finalized with Audi Karnal. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased Audi car on 15.2.2014, but the respondents no.1 and 2 have supplied the car of Model 2013 to the complainant and due to this, he has suffered a huge loss to the tune of Rs.7 lacs.

          But we find no force in this contention of the ld. Counsel for the complainant. Rather we find force in the law cited by the ld. counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 rendered in Raj Kumar Vs. Tayal India Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2015(1) CPJ 253 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that “the complainant did not lodge any protest and accepted the delivery of the vehicle alongwith sale certificate-There was nothing illegal in selling a vehicle manufactured in March 2009 to a customer in June, 2011-Month and year of manufacture of vehicle disclosed at the time of sale-Deficiency not proved”.

          We have perused the retail invoice and undertaking given by the complainant to the respondents no.1 and 2.  In the retail invoice, it is specifically mentioned that discount of Rs.5,88,423/- was given to the complainant.  The ex-showroom price of the vehicle was Rs.33,61,000/- and after taking discount of Rs.588423/-, the complainant paid Rs.2,72,577/- to the respondents no.1 and 2.  In our view, the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and he very cleverly mentioned at page no.2 that the value of the car was Rs.27,72,577/- and he no where mentioned the actual price of the vehicle which was Rs.33,61,000/-. Further the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint or affidavit that he has taken discount of Rs.5,88,423/- from the respondents no.1&2.  Further the undertaking dated 15.2.2014 which bears the signatures of the complainant also totally speaks against him because in this undertaking, he himself has mentioned that “As per records I am buying manufacturing year 2013 car with my consent and I am also agree with the terms and conditions finalized with Audi Karnal”. So, in our view, at this stage, it does not lie on the mouth of the complainant to take such a baseless plea that he has suffered a loss of Rs.7 lacs due to supply of 2013 model car because everything was well within the knowledge of the complainant and he himself by giving undertaking has purchased the 2013 model car from the respondents no.1 and 2 and has taken the discount of Rs.5,88,423/- from the above respondents.  In our view, there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 and the complainant has also miserably failed to prove the same.  In our view, the present complaint has no merit and the same deserves dismissal. 

          So, keeping in view the above observations &  findings, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 08.10.2015.