DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.130/2016
1. Sh. R. K. Mehta
Managing Director,
Continental Advertising Pvt. Ltd.,
605, Gagan Deep Building,
12, Rajendra Place,
New Delhi-110008
2. Continental Advertising Pvt. Ltd.,
605, Gagan Deep Building,
12, Rajendra Place,
New Delhi-110008 ….Complainants
Versus
1. Bagga Link Motors Ltd.
Through its Director, Rajinder Bagga,
136, Bhisham Pitamah Marg,
Kotla Mubarakpur,
Opposite Defence Colony,
New Delhi-110003
2. HDFC Bank Ltd.
Express Building
4th Floor ITO, New Delhi
Also at:
HDFC Bank House,
Senapati Bapat Road,
Lower Parel, West,
Mumbai ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 06.05.2016 Date of Order : 06.09.2018
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Naina Bakshi
Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that the complainant No.1 was interested to purchase a Zxi AT Ciaz car manufactured by Maruti Udyog for personal use for himself and his family members and approached OP No.1 in December, 2015. After detailed discussions held with the OP No.1 the complainant No.1 came to the conclusion that considering his requirement and age he will purchase a Zxi AT automatic model of Ciaz Maruti Car. The OP No.1’s representative Mr. Khan informed the complainant No.1 that the market price of the said model was Rs.10,04,000/- excluding cash discounts, exchange bonus and the old Opel Astra Car in perfect condition.. The OP No.1 assured certain cash discounts of Rs.40,000/-. In addition the said representative of the OP No.1 agreed to give certain incentives to the complainant No.1 i.e. an exchange bonus of Rs.25,000/- and the purchase price for the old car of the complainant No.1 will be Rs.50,000/-. The complainant No.1 agreed the above proposal and the same was confirmed by Mr. Satnam Singh, Sales Manager of the OP No.1. The OP No.1 informed that Ms. Monika will deal on behalf of the OP No.1. The complainant No.1 visited the OP No.1 office and finalized the purchase of the said car after giving the discounts and incentives as agreed by Mr. Khan. Ms. Monika informed the complainant No.1 that the said model chosen by the complainant No.1 was not available, hence she offered a lower model Vxi AT of Ciaz car with all the features of a Zxi AT model except for the push button start. She informed the complainant No.1 that the said lower end model with the features a Zxi AT was being offered to the complainant No.1 for a sum o Rs.10,00,000/- excluding all discounts as already agreed. It is submitted that the representation made by Ms. Monika was misleading as a Zxi AT model was available on 31.12.2015 with Rana Motors authorized dealer of Maruti Car. The OP No.1 convinced the complainant No.1 to avail loan facility from OP No.2 for purchasing the said car and suggested that the complainant No.1 should buy the vehicle in the name of the complainant No.2 to avail the exchange bonus being the old car in the name of the company which was valued at Rs.50,000/-. The complainant No.1 agreed to the proposal given by the OPs and accordingly pursuant to a written assurance by the OP No.1 that all the incentives and discounts shall be given, the complainant No.1 agreed to make booking of the said car with the OP No.1 in the name of the complainant No.2 as also to avail the loan from the OP No.2 for financing purchase of the said car to the tune of Rs.6 lacs. The complainant No.1 signed the loan documents as provided by the representative of OP No.2 on the condition that the loan amount will be released only after the said Ciaz car with all the features/incentives/discounts as agreed during discussions as mentioned by the representative of OP No.1 on a piece of paper was provided to the complainant No.1 for inspection and purchase. The OP No.2 agreed with the said condition of the complainant. The complainants made the booking of the said car with the OP No.1 and paid the booking amount of Rs.21,000/- on 27.12.15 to the OP No.1 which was followed by an online transfer of sum of Rs.3,79,000/- to the OP No.1 on 31.12.15 being part consideration for the purchase of the said car after the upgradation of the car to the level of a Zxi AT minus push button. The complainants also paid Rs.30,000/- on 30.12.15. It is submitted that the total on road cost of the car was agreed as Rs. 10 lacs excluding all discounts amounting to Rs.1,15,000/-. It is submitted that without allowing the complainant No.1 to inspect the car prior to the purchase and delivery thereof. The OP No.1 unilaterally delivered the car to the residence of complainant No.1 on 03.01.2016. The representative of OP No.1 who came to deliver the car was called upon to give inspection of the features/incentives, and also to show whether or not the provisions for discount has been made or not to which the representative of OP No.1 had no answer and in fact on inspection it was found that the features/incentives as agreed were not provided by OP No.1 and delivered the lower end model without any upgradation/features of a Zxi AT model. The complainants as such refused to accept the delivery of the car but the said representative of OP No.1 left the said car at the residence of the complainant No.1 in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Complainant No.1 sent a letter dated 08.01.16 to the OP No.1 mentioning all the features and commitment made complementing to a Zxi AT was not provided. The registration certificate of the said car was also not given, however without prejudice to the rights of the complainant and reserving the right to initiate appropriate action against the OPs, the said registration certificate was collected on 17.03.16 after a written request made by the complainants so as to comply with the rules of Transport Authority. The registration certificate was taken, since the car was lying unutilized for more than three months and it was also necessary to ascertain whether the hypothecation was made in favour of Bank or not. The complainants also informed the fact to the OP No.2 and requested OP No.2 not to release any payment to OP No.1 as the car as provided was not as per the agreed terms and requirements of the complainant No.1. However, the OP No.2 collided with OP No.1 and without even completion of papers work the OP No.2 released the payment to the OP No.1. The complainants stated that they had not received any response from the OPs as the complainants repeatedly requesting the OP No.1 to remove the said car from the premises of the complainant No.1 and to refund the money paid to the OP No.1 or in alternative to provide a car with the agreed features, discounts and incentives to the complainant. The complainant No.1 also visited the office of the OP No.1 and making various calls to the representative of OP No.1 from time to time. The complainant No.1 informed the OP No.2, not to release any amount to OP No.1 till the time the grievance of the complainants are remedied by the OP No.1 and entire paper work is completed but the OP No.2 had not paid any heed to the aforesaid repeated requests of the complainants and released the amount to the OP No.1. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the parts of OPs the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following prayers.
a. Direct the OP No.1 to refund the amount received from the complainants alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
b. Or in alternative direct the OP No.1 to give the features as have been agreed in the said car and to give the cash discount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainants.
c. Direct the OP No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainants towards damages and compensation for causing inconvenience, hardship, humiliation, mental agony, harassment and torture on account of wholly unjustified and illegal action of the OPs.
d. Direct the OPs to pay legal costs of proceedings i.e. Rs.1 lac to the complainants.
Vide order dated 26.10.16, the complaint was admitted against OP No.1 only.
Appearance was put on behalf of the OP No.1 on 21.12.16 but thereafter none appeared on its behalf and it was proceeded exparte on 06.02.17.
Complainant has filed exparte evidence and written arguments.
We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
The complainants have filed a kachhi copy dated 26.11.15 as CW-1/1. CW-1/2 relates to order booking. The OP No.1 issued a charges invoice as CW-1/3. The certificate cum policy schedule issued by the National Insurance Co. as CW-1/4. The complainants sent a letter dated 31.12.15 whereby the complainants have stated that they received the car, registration No.DL1CV4632 subject to verification of all items and accounts as agreed between the complainants and Ms. Monika of Bagga Links and Mr. Khan as CW-1/5. OP No.1 issued the payment cum confirmation form dated 03.01.2015 as CW-1/8. The complainants vide email dated 01.01.2016 sent to the OP No.1 to refund an excess amount of Rs.22,000/- as CW-1/10. The complainants vide letter dated 23.01.2016 sent a letter to the OP No.1 not to disburse the amount of Rs.6 lacs to the OP No.1 without writing from the complainant as CW-1/12. The complainant requested the OP No.2 to stop the payment of the cheque to the OP No.1. The complainants again sent a letter dated 25.01.2016 wherein they have informed that since this is a case of fraud by releasing the payment illegally. The responsibility of the recovery from M/s Bagga Link Motors lies with the bank if the amount has been released without legal formalities having been completed as CW-1/16. The complainants sent legal notice dated 01.03.2016 to the OPs.
It is evident from the documents submitted by the complainants that the complainants received a car from the OP No.1 on 31.12.15 as CW-1/5 wherein complainants mentioned that “Received the car Reg No. DL I CV 4632 subject to verification of all items & accounts as agreed between the company & Ms. Monika of Bagga Links & Mr. Khan. The complainants have not filed any papers relating wherein the discount of Rs.40,000/- has been offered to the complainants by the OP No.1. In kachhi copy issued by the OP No.1 it is only mentioned that the cost of the said car is Rs.10 lacs and agreed by Ms. Monika on 26.12.15 as “agreed the car to be upgraded to Zxi AT minus Push button.”
In view of the above it appears that OP No.1 had issued the kachchi copy of papers wherein OP No.1 had agreed to upgrade the car to a Zxi AT minus push bash button. But the OP No.1 did not honour its commitment and failed to comply as agreed between the parties to upgrade the car to Zxi AT minus push button hence it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. We allow the complaint and direct the OP No.1 to upgrade the model from Vxi AT to ZXxi AT model of Ciaz car as agreed and to pay Rs.50,000/- in lumpsum to the complainants towards compensation for harassment and mental agony undergone by the complainants within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the OP No.1 shall become liable to pay the said amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 06.09.18
