District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Near F.C.I. Godowns, Muradpura, Tarn Taran (Punjab)
Consumer Complaint No: 53 of 2015
Date of Institution: 8.10.2015
Date of Decision: 28.07.2016
Atma Singh son of Saroop Singh, resident of Mohalla Guru Ka Khooh, Tehsil & District Tarn Taran.
…Complainant
Versus
- Ahuja Auto Mobiles, Amritsar Road, Near Bypass Taran Taran, through its Proprietor (Kosmo Hyundai)
- Regional Manager North, Hyundai Motors Pvt. Limited, DLF Building, Tower B, 3rd Floor, RGCT Park, Chandigarh-160101.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. A.K.Mehta, President.
Smt.Jaswinder Kaur, Member
For complainant Sh.H.S.Sandhu, Advocate
For Opposite Parties Sh. N.P.S. Manchanda, Advocate
A.K. Mehta, President
1 Sh. Atma Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against Ahuja Auto Mobiles, Amritsar Road, Near Bypass Taran Taran, through its Proprietor and another (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice with further prayer to direct Opposite Party No.1 to pay Rs.20,000/- being the ‘in-house exchange bonus’, besides Rs.60,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.4,000/- on account of registration charges and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2 The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a retired government employee and purchased car make I-20 Megna (O) from Opposite Party No.1 which was manufactured by Opposite Party No.2; that he purchased the car on 7.7.2014 for Rs.6,66,241/- and at the time of purchase of the car, Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that he will pay ‘in-house exchange bonus’ of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as the complainant had exchanged his old car make I-10 with new one and sold his old car to Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.2,60,000/- and on the assurance of Opposite Party No.1 for ‘in-house exchange bonus’, the complainant purchased car from Opposite Party No.1; that the complainant paid Rs.7,13,501/- to Opposite Party No.1 at Tarn Taran including the registration charges, logistic charges, temporary registration charges and Opposite Party No.1 also assured the complainant that ‘in-house exchange bonus’ of Rs.20,000/- would be paid in cash to the complainant after 3 months; that the car was delivered to the complainant at Tarn Taran and after 3 months, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 in order to receive Rs.20,000/- as ‘in-house exchange bonus’ and registration certificate; that Opposite Party No.1 demanded Rs.4,000/- more from the complainant for getting the vehicle registered with Transport Authority and also told the complainant that ‘in-house exchange bonus’ of Rs.20,000/- would be paid after one month; that the complainant told Opposite Party No.1 that he has already paid the amount for registration charges, but Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that due to increased rate of registration charges, he has to pay the same; that the complainant resisted the demand of Rs.4,000/-, but Opposite Party No.1 was adamant to receive the same and also asked the complainant to come up after one month to receive the Registration Certificate; that the complainant again contacted Opposite Party No.1 after one month, but Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that Registration Certificate of the vehicle is not yet received by them from transport department as the complainant has not paid Rs.4,000/- and also told the complainant that ‘in-house exchange bonus’ would also be paid after one month; that the complainant again resisted the demand of Rs.4,000/-, but Opposite Party No.1 was adamant to demand the same and asked the complainant to visit after one month; that complainant again visited Opposite Party No.1 many a times and Opposite Party No.1 was adamant to receive Rs.4,000/- from him and due to this reason, the complainant paid Rs.4,000/- on 7.1.2015 vide receipt No. 3818 and after payment, Opposite Party No.1 delivered the Registration Certificate of the vehicle immediately, but Opposite Party No.1 did not pay Rs.20,000/- as ‘in-house exchange bonus’ and fraudulently refused to pay the same; that the complainant was surprised to notice that the date of the issuance of registration certificate of the vehicle was 2.1.2015 whereas extra payment of Rs.4,000/- was made to Opposite Party No.1 on 7.1.2015 which shows that the Registration Certificate of the vehicle was already issued by Transport Department before the receipt of extra payment by Opposite Party No.1; that the complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 many times for receiving Rs.20,000/- as ‘in-house exchange bonus’, but Opposite Party No.1 avoided the same and then complainant served legal notice in July, 2015 on Opposite Party No.1 for demanding ‘in-house exchange bonus’, but no reply was given by Opposite Party No.1; that the Opposite Party No.1 is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and it has caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint was filed.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was sent to Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written reply contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the complaint has been filed in collusion. On merits, it was admitted that answering Opposite Party sold the vehicle in question to the complainant. It was asserted that the amount of Rs.4,000/- was received by Opposite Party No.1 due to rate of tax increased by government, though it was denied if Rs.20,000/- was to be paid by answering Opposite Party as ‘in-house exchange bonus’. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint against answering Opposite Party with heavy costs.
4. Opposite Party No.2 also appeared through counsel and filed written reply contesting the complaint vehemently. It was asserted that the complaint is frivolous, misconceived and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts and deserves to be dismissed in limine; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the answering Opposite Party as no cause of action has arisen against it and even no allegation has been leveled against answering Opposite Party nor any relief has been claimed against answering Opposite Party and all the reliefs have been claimed from Opposite Party No.1 and as such, answering Opposite Party is just a proforma party and has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party; that no specific allegation has been leveled against answering Opposite Party. It was asserted that answering Opposite Party can not be held liable for any error or omission on the part of its dealer; that the complainant has alleged that there was delay in registration of the vehicle and the non-payment of ‘in-house exchange bonus’ as promised by Opposite Party No.1 and on receipt of the complaint, answering Opposite Party enquired from Opposite Party No.1 and as per the information supplied by Opposite Party No.1, the amount of Rs.4,000/- has been collected from the complainant because the transport authority has increased the tax on registration of the vehicle and no exchange bonus was promised to the complainant and cash discount of Rs.19,451/- as promised has already been given to the complainant. It was asserted that the sale of the vehicle is strictly inter se complainant and concerned selling dealer i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and the answering Opposite Party being manufacturer of the vehicle has no role in retail sale or registration of the vehicle. It was asserted that answering Opposite Party operate with all its dealers on a principle-to-principle basis and not as a principal-to-agent, hence the answering Opposite Party could not be held liable for acts & omissions of dealer; that this Forum does not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint qua the answering Opposite Party. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were also denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint against answering Opposite Party.
5 Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of receipt dated 7.1.2015 Ex.C2, copy of detail dated 7.7.2014 Ex.C3, copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question Ex.C4 and closed his evidence and thereafter ld. counsel for Opposite Parties tendered affidavit of Gurinder Singh, Assistant Sales Manager Ex.OP1,2/1 and closed evidence.
6 We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.
7. Ld.counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant purchased car make I-20 from Opposite Party No.1 on 7.7.2014 and Opposite Party No.1 issued Invoice Ex.C3 in which it is clearly mentioned that ‘in-house exchange bonus’ would be given, but no such bonus was given to the complainant though the complainant sold his I-10 car to Opposite Party No.1. He further contended that as per the government order, the Registration Certificate of the vehicle is to be got prepared and issued by the dealer i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and for that purpose, Opposite Party No.1 obtained registration charges from the complainant . He further contended that as per the directions of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 after one month, but Opposite Party No.1 didn’t deliver the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question and rather demanded Rs.4,000/- from the complainant , though the complainant resisted the demand number of times, but ultimately, the complainant paid Rs.4,000/- to Opposite Party No.1 on 7.1.2015 vide receipt Ex.C2. He contended that Opposite Party No.1 then delivered Registration Certificate of the vehicle, copy of which is proved as Ex.C4 which is dated 2.1.2015 and it clearly shows that Opposite Party No.1 received the amount of Rs.4,000/- illegally on 7.1.2015 and it shows unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1 as Opposite Party No.1 received Rs.4,000/- from the complainant on the pretext that registration charges have been increased by the government, whereas Registration Certificate of the vehicle has already been issued by Transport Department much before the receipt of payment of Rs.4,000/- by Opposite Party No.1 and as such, the complaint is required to be allowed and Opposite Party No.1 is required to be directed to pay the amount to the complainant as mentioned in the complaint.
8. Ld.counsel for Opposite Parties contended that Rs.4,000/- was required to be paid by the complainant on account of increase in registration charges of the vehicle by the government and as such, the amount of Rs.,4,000/- was rightly received by Opposite Party No.1 from the complainant and thereafter the Registration Certificate of the vehicle was delivered to the complainant. He also contended that invoice clearly shows that Rs.19,451/- was received less at the time of sale of the car against exchange bonus and it is mentioned in the Invoice Ex.C3 and as such, no amount was received from the complainant illegally nor any amount is to be paid to the complainant and the complaint is false and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
9. After going through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents produced by the parties, this Forum finds considerable force in the contention of the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 has contended that an amount of Rs.4,000/- was received due to increase in registration charges by the government, but no such document has been proved on the file showing that registration charges were increased by the government after sale of the car in question, to the complainant. Moreover, it is also not proved by Opposite Party No.1 that what were the previous registration charges before the increase of the registration charges as contended by Opposite Party No.1. Otherwise also, Rs.4,000/- were received by Opposite Party No.1 from the complainant on account of alleged increase in registration charges on 7.1.2015 whereas the Registration Certificate of the vehicle Ex.C4 was prepared by the Transport Department on 2.1.2015, which shows that the plea taken by Opposite Party No.1 is not correct because had it been so, then the Registration Certificate of the vehicle would not have been prepared till the complainant had paid the increased registration charges and it shows that Opposite Party No.1 received the amount of Rs.4,000/- illegally which amounts to unfair trade practice.
10. Opposite Party No.1 has asserted in the written reply that no such promise was made to the complainant for payment of ‘in-house exchange bonus’ of Rs.20,000/-. Otherwise the case of the complainant is that he sold his old I-10 Car to Opposite Party No.1 at the time of purchase of car in question and due to this reason, Opposite Party No.1 promised to pay ‘in house exchange bonus’ of Rs.20,000/-. Opposite Party No. 2 who is manufacturer of the vehicle in question, filed written reply stating therein that after the receipt of the complaint, enquiry was made from Opposite Party No.1 and it was told that the amount of Rs.4,000/- was received on account of increase in registration charges and Rs.19,451/- were received less as promised by Opposite Party No.1. However, at the time of arguments, it was contended by Opposite Party No.1 that an amount of Rs.19,451/- was received less on account of ‘in-house exchange bonus’. However, there is no force in this contention of Opposite Party No.1 because the amount of Rs.19,451/- is mentioned in the column as ‘Cash Less’ and not in the column of ‘in-house exchange bonus’ though Opposite Party No.1 has argued in the Forum that amount of Rs.19,451/- was received less on account of ‘in-house exchange bonus’ which shows that Opposite Party No.1 promised to pay the complainant Rs.20,000/- as ‘in-house exchange bonus’ which otherwise is not paid to the complainant by Opposite Party No.1 as amount of Rs.19,451/- mentioned in Invoice Ex.C3 can not be equated with exchange bonus. As such, Opposite Party No.1 has also not paid Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as promised at the time of sale of the car in question and it amounts to deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1. Otherwise, the complainant has not sought any relief against Opposite Party No. 2 as all the reliefs have been claimed against Opposite Party No.1. As such, the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.4,000/- from Opposite Party No.1 which have been received by Opposite Party No.1 illegally from the complainant, which is unfair trade practice and the complainant is also entitled to recover Rs.20,000/- as ‘in-house exchange bonus’ from Opposite Party No.1.
11. In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds as discussed above and is allowed with costs in favour of complainant and against Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as ‘in-house exchange bonus’ and Rs.4,000/- to the complainant which was received from the complainant illegally on account of alleged increase of registration charges. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses from Opposite Party No.1. However, the complaint against Opposite Party No. 2 is dismissed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to comply with this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in Open Forum
Dated 28.07.2016.
(Jaswinder Kaur) (A.K. Mehta)
Member President
