Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/14

Sham Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhakra Service Station - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manbir Singh Dhindsa, Adv

27 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  14 of 12.03.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :     27.07.2018

 

Sham Lal, son of Sohan Lal, resident of House No.61, Ward No.11, Uchi Ghati, Mohalla, Morinda, Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 1. Bhakra Service Station Pvt. Ltd. Ropar, Kurali Road, NH-21, Near        Toll Barrier, Ropar, through its Manager.

2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Regional Office at Unit No.C-113-114, First Floor Office, Suit Elante Mall Business Industrial Area Phase-1,        Chandigarh. 

3.  Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Registered Office at 2^nd, 5^th & 6^th Floor,     Corporate-1, Bahi Building Plot No.5, Commercial Centre Jasola   Vihar Delhi, 110025.   

                                                                         ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Manbir Singh Dhindsa, Adv. counsel for complainant   

Sh. Mandeep Moudgil, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1

          Smt. Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, Adv. counsel for O.Ps. No.2 &3 

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.2,17,135/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchasing the car till its realization; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental, physical and monitory harassment; to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of this complaint; any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit be granted to the complainant, in the interest of justice.  

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that in the month of December, 2017, representative of O.P. No.1 approached at residence of complainant. The said representative told him that he is representative of O.Ps. Then the said official have introduced a scheme and said that there is so many schemes on new Hyundai i20 and further stated that there is a big discount on purchasing of new i20 due to the eve of festivals and due to the end of the year. The said official further allured to him that even for that purpose the Ops are providing finance facilities at very low rate of interest. Swayed by the allurements, the complainant showed his interest for purchasing the i20 car, then the said official got filled some performa from him and invited in the office of the O.P. No.1. Thereafter, complainant went to the office of OP No.1 and swayed by the allurements, he purchased new i20 Asta, 1.4 DSL BSIV on 24.12.2017 bearing engine No.D4FCHM476668, Chassis No.MALMB51RLHM477593 and official of O.P. No.1 took the signatures of the complainant on so many papers without disclosing anything about those on the pretext of completing paper formalities. Employess of the O.Ps have stated that on road price of the said vehicle i.e. Rs.8,85,000/- which is including the showroom price of the vehicle along with all taxes, insurance charges and registration charges. The complainant has paid Rs.8,85,000/- I total to the O.p. No.1 out of which the complainant has availed the loan facility from Oriental Bank of Commerce for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to the O.Ps. in cash vide two receipts No.11809 dated 24.12.2017 and 11880 dated 28.12.2017 and remaining amount of Rs.85,000/- was transferred by the complainant from his personal account to the account the O.P. No.1. In this way the O.Ps. have received an total amount of Rs.8,85,000/- from the complainant. At the time of purchasing the said car the O.Ps. have given a discount of Rs.22,144/- on purchasing of new i20 car. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that the O.Ps. have received excess amount from the complainant at the time of purchasing the above said vehicle and then he inquired the matter and collected the documents then it came to the notice that the O.Ps have received excessive amount of Rs.1,94,991/- from the complainant and it also came to the notice that the O.ps. have also not adjusted the discount amount of Rs.22,144/- anywhere. The O.Ps. have also imposed the unnecessarily taxes upon the complainant. All the net cars are including all the taxes in ex.showroom price and the OPs have no right to impose any extra tax upon any buyer except the showroom price. In this way, the O.Ps. have received the excessive amount of Rs.2,17,135/- from the complainant, wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily. Hence, this complaint.  

  3.  On notice, O.P. No.1 appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering O.P.; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts; that the complainant is not consumer of the answering O.Ps; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P; that the complaint has been filed by the complainant on the basis of the totally wrong, false and vague facts. On merits, it is stated that no excess amount has been received by the answering O.P. from the complainant. The basic price of the car i.e. i20 Asta 1.4 DSL BSIV was Rs.6,34,940/- however the discount was given to the complainant of Rs.22,144/- on this amount as GST and CGST @ 14% each along with Cess, has been deducted which is shown in our bill, on deducting the tax on the discount amount, the amounts comes out to be Rs.6,18,036/-. This is subject to 14% SGST, 14CGST, and Comp. Cess @ 3% to be charged separately on net selling price of Rs.6,18,036/-. These figures are also shown separately. Net amount of the car comes to be Rs.8,09,627/-. In additional to the price of the car, the customer has paid Rs.18,358/- as insurance, Rs.3000/- has handling charges, Rs.400/- as fast tag charges and Rs.53615/- as registration charges and total amount comes to be Rs.8,85,000/- as the net price of the car as on road price and the customer agreed to it. So nothing excess amount has been charged from the customer.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

4.    The O.Ps. No.2 &3 appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against HMIL; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the answering O.ps. operates with all its dealers including OP No.1 on principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent basis; that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering O.Ps. as the complainant has not raised any allegations regarding the performance of the car; that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and answering O.Ps. and no money towards the sale consideration or for any other services was paid to answering O.Ps.; that no cause of action has arisen against the answering O.Ps.; that this Hon'ble Forum has any jurisdiction to try the present complaint qua answering O.ps. as the principal office of answering O.Ps. is situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum. On merits, it is stated that complainant has himself stated that the official of O.P. No.1 had approached to him and all the alleged allurements or promises were made by him. Thus, it is clear that the entire transaction was between the O.P. No.1 and complainant. as per record, Hyundai i2 car bearing VIN No.MALBM51RLHM477593 was purchased by Sham Lal from M/s Bhakra Service Station on 24.12.2017. It is further stated that the liability of answering O.Ps. being the manufacturer being the manufacturer of the Hyundai cars is limited and extends to its performance and warranty obligations that also as per the warranty policy. Since, the complainant has not raised any allegations regarding the performance of the car. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

5.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C15 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has tendered sworn affidavit of Sh. Satish Kumar Chabbra, MD of Bhakra Service Station Pvt. Ltd Ex.OP1/1 along with documents OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/14 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Varun Panta, Assistant Manager Legal & Secrtarial with M/s Hyundai Motor India Limited Ex.OP2 & 3/A along with documents Ex.OP2&3/1 & Ex.OP2&3/2 and closed the evidence. 

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.    Complainant counsel Sh. Manbir Singh Dhindsa, argued that Sham Lal (Complainant) purchased one new i20 car from the O.P. No.1 and made payment Rs.8,85,000/-. While the only amount was settled Rs.8,09,627/-. The learned counsel by referring the documentary evidence as well as pleadings then the calculation prayer that O.P. No.1 charged excess to the price of the vehicle which amounts deficiency in service. Because the price mentioned in the quotation Rs.8,09,627/-, said amount was referred to the bank and obtained loan of Rs.6,00,000/-. The discount was Rs.22,144/-. Lastly prayed that OP charged excessive amount Rs.1,94,991/- and prayed to allow the complaint with cost.

8.    Smt. Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, counsel for O.Ps. No.2 & 3 placed on file written arguments supported by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, passed in civil appeal No.4600 of 1984, decided on 1.11.1995 and in the light of written arguments prayed that if the price is excessively charged by the O.P. No.1 (who is dealer) from the complainant then that matter not relates to the manufacturer, rather it is between the dealer and customer/complainant. Against O.Ps. No.2 & 3 no relief can be granted in faovur of complainant.

9.    Sh. Mandeep Moudgil, counsel for the O.P. No.1 argued that ex.OP1/3 is the invoice dated 24.12.2017 vide which the net price of the vehicle mentioned Rs.6,34,940/- then with deduction discount remaining amount recorded Rs.6,18,036/-. Thereafter, added the GST and total price of the vehicle mentioned Rs.8,09,627/-. The learned counsel after referring  the other documents prayed that complainant has relied upon Ex.C11 dated 24.12.2017 issued by the employee of the Bhakra Service Station and prayed that the said document speaks the price of the vehicle Rs.8,09,627/-. Beside this OP No.1 charged premium of the insurance Rs.18,358/-, road tax Rs.53615/-, insurance charges Rs.3000/-, and fast tag charges Rs.400/-, total Rs.8,85,000/- when charges Rs.8,85,000/- then there is no excess charged proved by the complainant against OP No.1. Lastly by referring the documentary evidence prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

10. Complainant is resident of District Rupnagar, OP No.1 has the agency at Rupangar, whereas OPs No.2 & 3 are the manufacturer. The sale/purchase and payment are admitted by both the parties then admitted qua the payment of road tax as well as insurance. The dispute is of whether OP No.1 charged excess amount from the complainant or not. So it is a consumer dispute and this Forum has the jurisdiction.

11.  Coming to the real controversy whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps or not. It is pertinent to mention that OPS No.2 & 3 are the manufacturer. Whereas complainant not sought any relief against the said O.Ps. Moreso, OPS No.2 & 3 has placed on file Ex.OPs2&3/1, which is photocopy of the dealership agreement. By referring this document has tried to convince this forum that there is agreement of dealership between the O.P. No.1 on the one side and O.P. No.2 on the other side. At the same time learned counsel for O.Ps. No.2 & 3 relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which proves the relationship between the agent and principal. Without going detail this Forum is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out to grant relief in favour of complainant against O.Ps. No.2 & 3 because the matter of controversy is between the complainant and O.P. No.1.

12.  Coming to the fact that whether deficiency on the part of O.P No.1 is made out or not. Pleadings as well as evidence led by both the parties is in accordance to the affidavits placed on file. The star document in this complaint is Ex.OP1/3i.e. invoice No.H201700370 dated 24.12.2017 & Ex.C11 dated 24.12.2017. Complainant counsel has tried to convince this forum by referring both the documents and not much pressed qua the remaining documentary evidence. Ex.OP1/3 speaks the total price of the vehicle with discount and including SGST 14%, CGST 14%, Comp. Cess 3%. For the more convenience the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (RS.)
1) Price of One New i20 ASTA 1.4 DSL BSIV 2) Discount 3)  Net Selling Price                                        SGST            14%                                      CGST            14%                                     Comp. Cess    3%	6,34,940.00 16,904.00 6,18,036.00   86525.00 86525.00 18541.00
SUB TOTAL	8,09,627.00
GRAND TOTAL	8,09,627.00

 

13.  At the same time Ex.C11 document relied upon by the complainant is also to be appreciated, by this proves that on 24.12.2017 deposited Rs.17,000/- cash by complainant with O.P. Thereafter on 28.12.2017 Rs.30,000/-, on 3.1.2018 Rs.6,00,000/-  then O.P. given the discount Rs.22,144/-. In the bottom of this document there is detail how the discount Rs.22,144/- calculated. Further mentioned the tag charges Rs.400/-, also mentioned the registration charges Rs.53,615/-, insurance premium Rs.18,358/-. The total price of the vehicle mentioned Rs.8,31,771/-. Discount given Rs.22,144/-, then net price of the vehicle Rs.8,09,627/-. Complainant alleged total payment Rs.8,85,000/- and OP explained the receipt of said amount Rs.8,09,627/- price, Rs.53,615/- registration charges, Rs.18358/- Insurance premium, Rs.400/- fast tag charges, Rs.3000/- as handling charges. So the total receipt comes to Rs.8,85,000/- .

14.  After thorough examination of documentary evidence and after going through the star document Ex.OP1/3, Ex.C11, the Forum is come the conclusion that OP No.1 charged the price of the vehicle, insurance premium, tag charges, handling charges, and road tax/RC charges which calculation on come to Rs.8,85,000/-. So the complainant remains fail in proving deficiency or excess charges by the OP NO.1.

15.  In the light of above discussion, the complaint stand dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

16.   The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.27.07.2018                                     PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER