DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/127 of 16.6.2015

                                      Decided on:        24.11.2015

Raj Kumar Garg s/o Thakur Dass R/o H.No.115, Near Khadi Bhandar, Ward No.2, Sangrur, M:98720-32404.  

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.      Bhagat Auto Mobiles through its owner/Manager/Authorized Signatory, Jhill Adda, Near Rajpura Bypass Sirhind Road, Patiala.

2.      Managing Director, Volwvagen Finance Pvt.Ltd. Level IV, Building No.3, North Avenue ,Maker Maxcity, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East,Mumbai-400051.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Y.R.Mangla , Advocate

For Ops:                       Sh.N.S.Sarwara,Advocate            

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased the car make Volkswagen  Vento A05 Comfo 77 TDI M5F Terra Beige Mettalic -2013 model bearing chassis No.WVWG136004DT073798 and engine No.CLN 244382 on18.4.2014 for Rs.836425/- , which was the ex-showroom price including the vat + surcharge upon it from Op no.1, the dealer of Op no.2 vide invoice No.VSIP1140084. The car was sold under a scheme of Op no.2 at a lesser price, the same being of the previous year model i.e. 2013 and under the scheme the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.4,05,000/- as part payment and the balance amount of Rs.4,31,425/- had to be paid by the complainant in 36 equated monthly installments with 0% interest. In addition to the said price, the complainant had also to pay the registration charges of Rs.64354/-and in that way the total sum payable in 36 monthly installments amounted to Rs.4,95,783/-.
2. The complainant made the payment of Rs.4,05,000/- to Op no.1 against receipt No.23 dated 18.4.2014 and who also issued another receipt on 29.4.2014  whereby the complainant was asked to make the payment of Rs.495783/- with 0% interest in installments.
3. The complainant had been paying the installments @ Rs.16667/-regularly and till the date of the filing of the complaint he made the payment of 14 installments.After the purchase of the vehicle, the complainant had been requesting the Ops to supply him the statement of account of his loan account so as know his exact liability but every time he was asked by Op no.1 to make a call to op No.2 at Mumbai office and when ever he called the Mumbai Office, the routine reply was that the system was not working and he should call at some other time and some time his call was not attended to. At this the complainant visited the office of op no.1 so as to get the copy of the statement.After much persuasion Op no.1 provided statement of account and on perusal of the same it was transpired that the Ops had made the complainant liable to pay a sum of Rs.6lacs instead of Rs.4,95,483/- without any reason. The Ops also raised penal charges in the statement of  account and when the complainant asked as to why the same were debited to his account, no satisfactory reply was got by him and rather he was put off under one or the other pretext.
4. The complainant got Op no.2 served with a legal notice  which was received back undelivered. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to correct the statement of account so as to reduce his liability from Rs.6lac to Rs.495,783/-; to pay him a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant and further to award him Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of the complaint.
5. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.1 only who on appearance filed the written version. It is admitted by the Op that the complainant had purchased the car in question from it for the total sale  price of Rs.8,36,425/- .It is also explained by the Op that there were two schemes offered by the Op to the complainant. In the first offer (finance offer) the ex-showroom price of the car was Rs.9,41,425/- and in case the complainant opted for the same i.e. the Financial loan of Rs.six lac with 0% interest, no rebate had to be given to the complainant and in the second offer ( cash offer) the ex-showroom price of the car was Rs.9,41,425/- and after giving the discount of Rs.1,05,000/- the price of car had to be Rs.8,36,425/-. In both the cases an amount of Rs.6900/- towards handling charges and Rs.45000/- towards the registration of the vehicle had to be realized. The complainant opted for the first offer i.e. Finance offer . A sum of Rs.6lacs was financed to the complainant by V W F P L, which was repayable in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.16,667/-. A sum of Rs.5350/- i.e. Rs.4700/- as processing charges and Rs.650/- as stamp duty were charged from the complainant by V W F P L. A sum of Rs.6900/- was realized towards handling charges and Rs.45000/-towards registration of the vehicle. On the persistent request of the complainant for giving him a rebate, an amount of Rs.10,342/- was granted as a rebate. An amount of Rs.16,667/- was received towards advance EMI from the complainant. V W F P L paid a sum of Rs.4,95,783/- to the Op and the amount of Rs.1,04,217/- was received less by the Op from the finance company. Annexure R1 is said to be the photo copy of the billing amount and finance detail regarding both the schemes of the car while R2 is said to be the annexure of the price list.
6. It is admitted by the Op that the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.4,05,000/- in part but it is denied that the complainant had to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,31,425/- in 36 equated monthly installments. In fact, the complainant had to pay Rs.six lacs in 36 equated monthly installments with 0% interest @ Rs.16,667/-per month. It is denied that in addition to the amount of Rs.4,05,000/-, the complainant had to pay the registration charges. As a matter of fact, the amount of Rs.45000/- had already been paid towards the registration charges. It is admitted by the Op that the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.4,05,000/- to Op no.1. Receipt dated 25.4.2014 for Rs.4,95,783/- pertains to the amount  which was received by the Op from the Finance Company. The Op sold the car for Rs.9,41,425/-.It is denied that the registration charges of the vehicle amounting to Rs.64354/- had to be paid by the complainant and rather the registration charges amounted to Rs.45000/-+ Rs.6900/- pertained to handling charges. After controverting the other averments of the complaint, going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.OPA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C10 and his counsel closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Ajay Kumar Shukla, authorized signatory of the Op alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed its evidence.
9. The Op filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
10. Whereas the complainant claims having purchased the car make Volkswagen Vento for Rs.8,36,425/- and that he had made the payment of Rs.4,05,000/- to Op no.1 vide receipt Ex.C2 dated 18.4.2014 he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,31,425/- to Op no.1 in 36 equated monthly installments @ Rs.16,667/- per month with 0% interest, it is the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant availed the finance offer and in that offer the ex-showroom price of the car was Rs.9,41,425/- out of which he was given a discount of Rs.10,342/-. He availed the finance loan of Rs.six lacs and he had to repay the balance amount in 36 equated monthly installment of Rs.16,667/-. Similarly, it is the plea taken up by the complainant that in addition to the price of the car, he had to pay a sum of Rs.64354/- towards the registration charges of the vehicle but in this regard it is the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant had already paid the registration charges of Rs.45000/- but he had to pay a sum of Rs.6900/- towards the logistic charges and further to pay Rs.5350/- i.e. Rs.4700/- as processing charges and Rs.650/- as stamp duty.
11. The plea taken up by the Op stands substantiated from the document Ex.OP1 dated 18.4.2014, when the delivery of the car was made to the complainant. As per the plea taken up by the Op , in Ex.OP1 two options have been given in one of which the ex-showroom price of the car was shown to be Rs.9,41,425/- and after giving a discount of Rs.1,05,000/- the net billing amount is shown to come to Rs.8,36,425/-. The other option given in Ex.OP1 is shows the ex-showroom price of the car at Rs.941425/- and in which the fianancé amount is shown to be Rs.six lac. The discount amount has been shown as Rs.10,342/-. The balance amount after adjusting the loan amount is shown as Rs.3,31,083/-.As per the plea taken up by the Op the advance EMI of Rs.16,667/- has also been adjusted besides the adjustment of Rs.5350/- towards the processing fee, Rs.6900/- towards logistic charges and Rs.45000/- towards registration fee and the total amount in respect of which comes to Rs.4,05,000/-, which was received by Op no.1 from the complainant in cash vide receipt Ex.C2. Thus, the complainant was shown in Ex.OP1 to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,77,983/- in equated monthly installments of Rs.16,667/-.
12. As a matter of fact, the plea taken up by the complainant that he had to pay only a sum of Rs.4,95,783/- and not Rs.5,77,983/- is belied when it is admitted by the complainant in para no.3 of the complaint that he had to pay the balance of Rs.4,31,425/- in 36 equated monthly installments and it is further admitted in para no.6 of the complaint that the installment had to be of Rs.16,667/- per month.  Multiplying the installment of Rs.16,667/- with 36, it would come to Rs.6,00,012/-.
13. Ex.C3, the receipt dated 25.4.2014 produced by the complainant regarding the payment of Rs.4,95,783/- pertains to the payment received by Op no.1 on behalf of the complainant from OP no.2 and in this regard, it is the plea taken up by the Op that VWFPL paid the amount of Rs.4,95,483/- to the OP and the Op received a sum of Rs.1,04,217/- less from the finance company. Making a plus of the two figures of Rs.4,95,483/-+ Rs.1,04,217/-, it would make a total of Rs.six lac. Thus, looking from any angle the plea of the Op certainly stands established with the help of the documentary evidence  whereas the plea of the of the complainant stands belied.
14. The complainant has placed on file Ex.C5, the statement of account of his loan account No.20141050764 maintained by Wolksvegan Finance Pvt.Limited for the period 15.5.2014 to 16.4.2015 , in which no interest has been charged on the installments deposited by the complainant and penal charges has been realized and it appears that the same was realized because of the delayed payments made by the complainant in respect of the installments due but the complainant has not challenged the same in any manner and we are of the considered view that OP2 was entitled to realize the penal charges on account of delayed payment having deprived it the use of the money withheld by the complainant for the specified period.
15. It is also important to note that the complainant claims having made the payment of Rs.64354/-towards the registration charges of the vehicle but no evidence in this regard is lead by the complainant and this aspect of the case also goes to belie the plea of the complainant and on the other hand as discussed earlier the plea of the Op that the complainant had already paid the registration charges of Rs.45000/- in the amount of Rs.4,05,000/- stands established with the help of the document Ex.OP1, in which the other payments made by the complainant i.e. the advance EMI of Rs.16,667/- , processing charges of Rs.5350/- , logistic charges of Rs.6900/- and the registration charges of Rs.45000/- have been accounted for. Ex.OP1 is a document which is signed by the complainant at two places and therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant is bound by the same and there is no reason to find favor with the plea taken up by the complainant. In other words, there is no merit in the case of the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed.       

Pronounced

Dated: 24.11.2015

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President