Shri Sahana Ahmed Basu, Member.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The complainant’s case, in short, is that complainant booked one TATA NANO-XT Car on payment of Rs.2,25,200/- (Rs.1,30,000/- by cheque and Rs.95,200/- by cash. The value of the subject Car is Rs.3,20,443/- including insurance premium. O.Ps.had announced an exchange offer for the complainant’s old Tata Nano Car and the exchange value has verbally been settled of Rs.85,000/-. O.Ps promised that said exchange value would be deducted from the price of new car and a celebration kit would also be supplied worth of Rs.10,000/-. On 16/01/2016 the subject car was delivered without any celebration kit and final invoice. Subsequently, O.Ps. supplied a back dated bill wherein the amount of the subject car was shown as Rs,.2,38,117/-. On 12/01/2016 O.Ps. issued a debit note regarding vehicle insurance of Rs.9,591/- but on perusal of the insurance policy it has found that the insurance amount was Rs.8,004/- and as such O.Ps. charged excess of Rs.1,587/-. Further case of the complainant that O.Ps. chargedRs.21,080/- on account of road tax registration but no PVDchallan was delivered. Moreover, O.Ps. chargedRs.1,000/- for fancy number but no fancy number was provided. Complainant further stated that it was committed by the O.Ps. to provide financial assistance through TATA Motors Finance Ltd. and they kept all the documents but no hypothecation was made. A SMSwas sent to the complainant confirming the delivery of celebration kit but no such kit was delivered. Being aggrieved by such acts of the O.Ps. complainant sent a notice but that was unturned. Finding no other alternative the complainant approached this Forum for reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
O.Ps.-1 and 2 contested the case by filing W.V. contending inter alia that complainant booked one Tata Nano Car on payment of Rs.2,25,200/- but they denied the exchange offer making valuation of the complainant’s old Tata Nano Car to the tune of Rs.85,000/-. O.Ps.-1 and 2 stated that they gave the valuation of the old car of Rs.40,000/-. The case of the O.Ps.-1 and 2 is that the actual break up of such offer is Rs.40,000/- for the old car, Cash Discount was Rs.15,000/-, Exchange Bonus of Rs.15,000/-, TML Support of Rs.5,000/- and Dealer’s of Rs.10,000/-. But out misconception, complainant thought that he ought to have get the exchange value of Rs.85,000/- excluding other offers. It is also stated byO.Ps.-1 and 2 is that they issued invoice dated 12/01/2016 showing the price of the subject car of Rs2,38,117/- and a debit note of other services of Rs.32,271/- which including vehicle insurance, road tax registration, fancy number and other charges. But complainant paid Rs.2,65,200/- in total including exchange value and his total bill was Rs.2,70,388/- and they adjusted such difference amount as Dealer discount of Rs.5,188/- out of their selfless support to their customer. O.Ps.-1 and 2 further stated that the actual insurance premium was of Rs.8,004/- and their company charged Rs.1,587/- towards their processing fee and handling charges, which is charged from every customer. O.Ps.-1 and 2 denied the allegation in respect of fancy number and Celebration Kit. Complainant was provided by fancy number and they never committed to provide celebration kit. They have also denied the allegation in regard to hypothecation and keeping the relevant papers. Hence, the O.Ps.-1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the instant consumer complaint with exemplary cost.
O.P.-4 has also contested the instant case by filing W.V. separately denying disputing all the material allegations made out in the petition of complaint assailing the maintainabilityof the complaint. It has been contended in the W.V. of the O.P.-4 that they are the manufacturer only and there is no dispute of any manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle. The dispute regarding the price offered tot eh complainant is not the concern on their part and they have no role on such offers of O.Ps.-1 and 2. It was not within the knowledge of them about the payments of complainant and O.Ps.-1 and 2 is the better position to confirm the same. The relevant papers of the subject car were handed over to the complainant. The onus to handover the tax invoice is upon O.Ps.-1 and 2. They also stated that they are not involved in the matter of financial assistance too. There is no deficiency in service on the part of them and as such they prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
In spite of service of notice, neither the O.P.-3 appeared nor did they contest the case and the notice is returned with postal endorsement “Left”. As such, the case against the O.P.-2 is proceeded ex-parte.
On pleadings of the partiesthe following points came up for the sake of proper and effective adjudication of the case.
- Are the O.Ps. deficient in rendering services to the complainant ?
- Are the O.Ps. indulged in unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief / reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Points No.-1 to 3.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
Complainant and contesting O.Ps. have tendered their evidences on affidavit. They have also given reply to the questionnaires set forth by their adversaries. Both parties have also filed BNAs.
It remains undisputed that the complainant booked one TATA Nano-XT car against payment of Rs.2,25,200/- (Rs.1,30,000/- by cheque and Rs.95,200/- by cash). As per Annexure-A of the consumer complaint the value of the subject car is Rs.3,20,443/- including insurance premium, handling charges, AMC price, accessories pack option, Road Tax and registration. On perusal of Annexure-H and I issued by K.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. we find that the value of the subject car is Rs.2,38,117/- including Sale Tax / Other Charges and Rs.32,271/- is for insurance, road tax, registration, fancy number and other charges. Thus total value of the subject car is Rs.2,70,388/-. Complainant failed to produce any document to establish that O.Ps.-1 and 2 offered exchange value of TATA Nano-XI Model-2011 would be Rs.85,000/- and such exchange value would be deducted from the price of the subject car. According tot eh O.Ps. the exchange value of the old TATA Nano XL car was Rs.40,000/-. Thus the total amount paid by the complainant is Rs.2,65,200/-. O.Ps. offered exchange value of the old car to Rs.85,000/-is not tenable according to law. Complainant also failed to produce any leaflet to show that the O.Ps. assured to supply one celebration kit for the subject car (TATA Nano XT). As such, this claim of the argument is also not tenable.
Annexure-E & F attached with the consumer complaint are delivery challan dated 16/01/2016 of K.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. and insurance policy of the subject car. On perusal of Annexure-E we find that K.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. delivered the subject car along with final invoice, owner’s manual, insurance cover note, optional road tax, optional R.C. paper, key, tool kit but no registration certificate was handed over to the complainant. Annexure-F goes to show that National Insurance Co. Ltd. chargedRs.8004/- as insurance claim of the subject car. On the contrary, the O.Ps. realizedRs.9591/- as insurance charges of the subject car. Road Tax registration receipt of PVD Govt. of W.B. and Smart Card of the subject car were not delivered to the complainant. It is ttrue that complainant never purchased the subject car after obtaining financial assistance from Tata Motors Ltd. but in the certificate of insurance (Annexure-F) the name of the financer has been noted. O.Ps. charged Rs.1000/- as fancy number of the subject car but the registrationNo.WB-02/AJ-0842 is not a fancy number of the subject car. O.Ps. also charged excess amount of registration, road tax and insurance premium. The legal dated 21/12/2016 (Annexure-O) was also unattended.
In the light of the above discussion coupled with documents on record, we are of the opinion that the O.Ps. are deficient in rendering services to the complainant and there is indulgence in unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. As a result, complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for. Thus all the points decided in the affirmative.
In result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against O.Ps.-1, 2 & 4 in part with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and dismissed ex-parte against O.P.-3 but without any litigation cost.
O.Ps.-1, 2 & 4 are directed to refund Rs.1,587/- being excess amount of insurance premium and Rs.1,000/- being fancy registration number of the subject car to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order with litigation cost.
O.Ps.-1, 2 & 4 are further directed to handover PVD receipt regarding Road Tax Registration expenses, counter part of Road Tax Receipt, Smart Card of the subject vehicle without any hypothecation endorsement and return all the papers, documents, photo, bank statement taken on account of financial assistance to purchase the subject vehicle to the complainant within the stipulated period.
O.Ps.-1, 2 & 4 are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment, mental pain and agony within the stipulated period.
O.Ps.-1, 2 & 4 are also directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- only to this Forum as punitive damage for practicing unfair trade within the stipulated period.
Liberty be given to the complainant to put the order into execution,if the OP transgress to comply the order.
