DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 676
Instituted on: 24.11.2016
Decided on: 24.04.2017
Mohd. Salim aged 49 years son of Mohd. Din R/O # 262, Ward No.22, Sirhandi Gate, Malerkotla, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Bhagat Ford M/s. A.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Authorized dealer of Ford cars, Patiala-Dhuri Bypass Road, Near SPS School, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
2. Bhagat Ford M/s. A.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. 658, Ind. Area A, Sherpur Bye Pass, GT Road, Ludhiana through its Authorised Signatory.
3. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Building 10C, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase II, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Naveen Markan, Advocate.
For OP Number 1&2 : Shri J.S.Moudgil, Advocate.
For OP Number 3 : Shri Kali Ram Garg, Advocate.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Mohd. Salim, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant visited the showroom of OP number 1 on 23.2.2016 to purchase one new Eco Sport Ford Dust
Silver Colour car and the Op number 1 asked to take the delivery of the same on 24.2.2016 for Rs.8,11,663/- and gave the quotation of the car, which included Rs.717017/- as the cost of vehicle and Rs.86,042/- as VAT andRs.8604/- surcharge on VAT and further the Op charged Rs.57,630/- on account of registration charges of the vehicle. The complainant paid Rs.1,90,000/- in cash and an amount of Rs.6,85,000/- by cheque, but at the time of delivery, the Op number 1 did not supply the documents such as invoice bill, form number 21 and 22 on the ground that the same are required to get the registration certificate of the vehicle. Further grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 only supplied the registration certificate on 25.5.2016 and only then the complainant came to know that the OP number 1 had sold the vehicle to the complainant of 2015 model instead of 2016, whereas the vehicle was purchased on 24.2.2016 in the year 2016. The complainant also lodged a complaint with the SSP Sangrur on 26.5.2016 and thereafter the complainant also got served a legal notice upon the Ops, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the vehicle in question with the new model or to refund the price of the vehicle along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OP number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious, that the complainant is unnecessarily misusing the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, that the complainant was made clear that he is having the option either to purchase the vehicle of 2016 or 2015 model, but the complainant chose to purchase 2015 model and the same was supplied accordingly and in lieu of 2015 model, free insurance for Rs.10,000/- was given and further discount of Rs.18000/- on account of exchange bonus was given to the complainant. It was specifically told to the complainant that the date of manufacturing of the vehicle was 30.11.2015. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 24.2.2016 and paid an amount of Rs.6,85,000/- through cheque and Rs.1,90,000/- in cash. It has been mentioned in the written reply that before selling the vehicle, the complainant was duly explained about the supply of 2015 model vehicle to the complainant.
3. In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and same has been filed only to harass the OP, that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complaint is bad for misjoider of the necessary parties and that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and that the Op is only manufacturer. It is further stated that the allegation of the complainant with respect to the selling of 2015 model car instead of 2016 model car holds no legal ground against the OP and in the present case the complainant has not suffered any monetary loss. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from OP number 1, but it is stated that OPs cannot be held liable for any negotiations between the complainant and the OP number 1 with respect to the sale of the vehicle in question. No assurance or representation of any kind was made to the complainant by OP number 3 with respect to the sale of the vehicle in question. It is stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-24 copies of various documents and affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 to Ex.Op1&2/6 affidavits and copies of the documents and closed evidence. evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 to Ex.OP3/4 copies of resolution, undertaking, agreement and affidavit and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.
6. It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased one Eco Sport Ford passenger car model 1.5 Eco Ambient on 24.2.2016 from the OP number 1 by paying the due amount and also paid an amount of Rs.57,630/- for getting the registration certificate. It is also not in dispute that the registration certificate of the vehicle was given to the complainant on 25.5.2016. Now, the complainant has alleged that though he purchased the vehicle in question on 24.2.2016 of 2016 model, but the OP number 1 wrongly and with malafide intention supplied the vehicle manufactured in November, 2015, which has decreased value. On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 1 is that at the time of sale i.e. on 24.2.2016, the complainant was duly explained and was given special discounts such as free insurance, cash discount of Rs.10,000/- and exchange bonus of Rs.18,000/- which was not available on 2016 model, as such, the complainant chose to purchase 2015 model vehicle, which otherwise had no difference of any kind. The complainant has not filed any rejoinder to deny the allegations of OP number 1, more so when, this fact is very much evident from the cost sheet, Ex.Op1&2/1, which clearly shows that the complainant was given exchange bonus of Rs.18,000/- and C. discount of Rs.10,000/- and we may mention that this document bears the signatures of the complainant also and further it shows that the vehicle was sold under the “scheme” as ticked on it. The OP number 1 has further drawn our attention towards the undertaking Ex.Op1&2/2, where in it has been clearly mentioned that “I /we understand that my/our new Eco 1.5D (Model/Variant) delivered to me by M/s.A.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. has manufacturing month November Year 2015. I/We do not have any issue in taking the delivery of 2015 manufactured vehicle. My/Our new Eco.1.5D (Model/Variant) is being delivered to me/us with my/our full knowledge and consent, which further bears the signatures of the complainant with date i.e. 24.2.2016. Further it is again written on the provisional registration certificate that the month and year of manufacture is 30/11/2015. Further this fact is supported by the affidavit of Jasbir Singh Manager of OP number 1.
7. Further it is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced even a single document on record to show that the OP number 1 at any place mentioned the model of vehicle as 2016, whereas there are number of documents where the model 2015 has been mentioned. As such, we feel that it was in full knowledge of the complainant that he purchased 2015 model Eco Sport from Op number 1 and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP number 1. Further there is no allegation of any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 3, as the vehicle in question was purchased from OP number 1 and 2 as there is dispute over the sale of old model vehicle to the complainant, which the complainant has miserably failed to establish on record.
8. In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
April 24, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
