Haryana

Sonipat

CC/51/2015

RASMI DHARA W/O UMESH DHARA - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. MALWA AUTO SALES PVT. LTD.,2. MALWA AUTO SALES PVT. LTD.,3. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL KUMAR

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.51 of 2015

                             Instituted on:20.02.2015                                           Date of order:01.09.2015

 

Rashmi Dahra wife of Umesh Dahra, resident of 12/521, Batra Colony, Rishi Nagar, Sonepat.

…Complainant.

Versus

 

1.Malwa Auto Sales (P) Ltd., Kabipur Bye-ass near Sai Mandir, Sonepat through its Manager.

2.Malwa Auto Sales (P) Ltd., NH-1, 31^st KM stone, Kundli, Sonepat through its Manager.

3.Hyundai Motor India Ltd. having Regd. Office and factory plot no.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrugattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram, Tamilnadu-602117 through its Manager.

 

                                                …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF        

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:    Sh. Anil Kumar Adv. for complainant.

              Sh. Kamal Hooda Adv. for respondent no.1 and 2.

              Sh. Kuldeep Solanki, Adv.for respondent no.3.

 

BEFORE    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging herself to be the registered owner of vehicle i.e. Maruti Alto LXI Car no.HR10L-1177 and the same was insured with the Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. w.e.f. 28.1.2014 to 27.1.2015.  The complainant approached the respondent no.1 on 21.12.2014 for purchase of new car and complainant was convinced to purchase Hyundai Xcent Car and ex-showroom price of this car was Rs.566966/- and assured the other benefits.  The complainant agreed to purchase the new car and Rs.1,08,000/- were assessed as value of old car under exchange.   The complainant booked the car and gave Rs.10,000/-  against receipt no.6905 dated 21.12.2014.    The complainant got the car loan from Bank of Baroda and a draft of Rs.4,30,000/- was issued in favour of  Malwa Auto Sales and this amount was received by respondent no.1.   The respondent no.1 also took the delivery of old car no.HR10L/1177 on 25.12.2014.  The complainant took the delivery of new car on 25.12.2014 and the invoice was given to the complainant in the first week of January, 2015 and after this, complainant came to know that invoice was issued by respondent no.2 instead of respondent no.1 and the invoice was of Rs.523818/- and a discount of Rs.43148/- was given to her on ex-showroom price of Rs.566966/-. The respondent no.1 has received a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- form the complainant instead of Rs.4,11,318/- and an amount of Rs.28682/- has been charged illegally by the respondents and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 & 2 and 3 appeared and they filed their written statement separately.

          The respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement has denied that the total amount is payable Rs.4,11,318/- rather the complainant is liable to pay the amount i.e. total cost comes to Rs.5,91,148/- and after deducting benefits of Rs.43148/-, total payment comes to Rs.5,48,000/-.    The respondents no.1 and 2 have charged the same amount from the complainant i.e. Rs.10000/- as advance booking, Rs.4,30,000/-  by demand draft and Rs.1,08,000/- as cost of old car. So, nothing is wrongly charged by the respondents no.1 and 2 from the complainant.  The respondents no.1 and 2 have denied the fact that they have wrongly charged an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- instead of Rs.4,11,318/- from the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled to get the refund of Rs.28682/- from the respondents no.1 and 2 alongwith interest.

          The respondent no.3 in its reply has submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the car.  The respondent no.3 cannot be held liable for the price charged for the vehicle by the dealer. NO promise was made by the respondent no.3 for providing a car manufactured in the month of Nov/December 2014 to the complainant.  The allegation of the complainant that the car is not having the shine of a new car and it not running smoothly, have not been substantiated by any evidence and thus, there is no manufacturing defect in the car and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent no.1 and 2 has charged excessively Rs.28,682/- as they charged Rs.4,40,000/- instead of Rs.4,11,318/-.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 have submitted that no excess amount has been charged from the complainant as has been pleaded by her in the complaint.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 has submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the car.  The respondent no.3 cannot be held liable for the price charged for the vehicle by the dealer. NO promise was made by the respondent no.3 for providing a car manufactured in the month of Nov/December 2014 to the complainant.  The allegation of the complainant that the car is not having the shine of a new car and it not running smoothly, have not been substantiated by any evidence and thus, there is no manufacturing defect in the car.

          After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available the case file very carefully, we straightaway decline the claim of the complainant replacement of the existing car with new one because the complainant has failed to substantiate any evidence to prove that the car in question is having any manufacturing defect. 

          Now coming to the other dispute involved in the present case.

          The respondent no.1 and 2 in their reply has admitted that they have issued invoice to the complainant for Rs.5,23,818/- after discount of Rs.43148/- on ex-showroom price i.e. Rs.566966/-. Rs.43148/- is included i.e. insurance amount Rs.15292/-, accessories amounting to Rs.1700/-, antirust coating Rs.1690/-, exchange bonus Rs.10,000/- and cash discount Rs.14,466/- i.e. total Rs.43148/-.  But the calculation mentioned at page no.3 by the respondent no.1 and 2 shows that the respondent no.1 and 2  once deducting the amount Rs.15292/-, Rs.1700/- and Rs.1696/-, but after deducting the above amount, they again included the above amount in the amount of Rs.566966/- and the total comes to Rs.591148/- and after deducting the amount of Rs.43148/- from Rs.591148/-, the amount comes to Rs.548000/-.  In our view, the respondents no.1 and 2 have wrongly added the amount of Rs.15292/-, Rs.1700/- and Rs.1696/- twice and the complainant is entitled to get refund of these amount.  Accordingly, the respondents no.1 and 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.15292/-, Rs.1700/- and Rs.1696/- i.e. total Rs.18688/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1 and 2 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:01.09.2015