BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                               Consumer Complaint No.: 134 of 2014

                                     Decided on                       :  24.04.2015

Amit Gupta, S/o Late Shiv Shankar Gupta, resident of House No. R-40, Focal Point, Nangal Township, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                    .....Complainant

                                                Vs.

1.  Bhakra Service Station Private Limited, Branch Office Nangal, Tehsil

     Nangal, District Rupnagar, through its Branch Manager.

2.  Bhakra Service Station Private Limited, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District

    Rupnagar through its Manager.

3. Hyundai Motor India Limited, 5^th -6^th Floor Corporate One, Baani

     Building Plot No.5, Commercial Centre Jasola, New Delhi, through

     its Managing Director.

                                                                                 ….Opposite Parties

QUORUM

                  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                  SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

Sh. Gagandeep Bhardwaj Advocate, counsel for complainant

 Sh. Mandeep Moudgil, Advocate, counsel for the Opposite

 Parties No. 1 & 2

Sh. Ram Avtar Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party No. 3

ORDER

                           MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Amit Gupta has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To pay Rs.55,000/- as damages,

ii)      To issue proper bill/forms of the Grand Hyundai i-10 Sports car,

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 26.05.2014, he had purchased one Grand Hyundai i-10 Sports car from the O.P. No. 1 for a sum of Rs.5,17,000/-. At the time of purchase of the said car, he had told the said O.P. that his sole purpose to purchase the said car was that he wanted to gift the same to his cousin, Mr. Ravi Gupta, on his birthday, which was to fall on 8.6.2014 and that he would get the same insured himself. Accordingly, he got the said car insured through the agent known to him, as such, the remaining amount, which he was to pay to the O.P. No. 1 came to Rs.5,01,000/-. He had also given his TATA Safari LX 2008 Model in exchange of the above said car and it was evaluated by the O.P. No. 1 at Rs.3,50,000/-, to which he agreed. The remaining amount of Rs.1,51,000/- was paid by him through cheque drawn on HDFC bank, which was got encashed on 30.5.2014. The O.P. No. 1 had neither issued any receipt regarding the sale/purchase of his TATA Safari nor had given any affidavit regarding purchase of the same, inspite of his repeated requests. At the time of the above said deal, the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 had assured him that the moment, the cheque was honoured, the bill of the car in question would be supplied to him. Inspite of the fact that the cheque was honoured on 30.5.2014, the O.P. No. 1 has not supplied him the bill as per its assurance/promise. As per the service book provided to him by the O.Ps. with the car in question, the tyres being fitted by the Company in such cars are of Apollo Company, but the tyres fitted with the car supplied to him are of Goodyear Company. There is difference of price between the Goodyear and Apollo tyres because the price of the tyre of Goodyear Company is lesser by Rs.700/- than that of Apollo Company, as such, he has suffered a loss of Rs.3500/- on that account. The O.P. No.1 had also charged a sum of Rs.4500/- on account of logistic charges, unnecessarily/illegally. Further, it had neither supplied him any accessories alongwith the car nor had given/offered any discount/concession, whatsoever offered by the Company concerned. The O.P. No. 1 had also constrained him to get the car registered through its office at an exorbitant & inflated rate, arbitrarily, to which he had flatly refused. Due to non-delivery of the vehicle in question as a gift to his cousin, his purpose for purchasing the same has frustrated. The O.P. No.1 had, thus, harassed him by adopting unfair trade practices, due to which he has suffered mental agony, physical harassment & financial loss. He had contacted the O.P. No. 1 telephonically and had also approached it personally, many times, for the redressal of his grievance, but to no use. Instead, the O.P. No. 1 had misbehaved and defamed him in the presence of its staff. The statutory/mandatory period of one month for getting the vehicle registered has elapsed due to the willful negligence, malafide intention & false arrogance of the O.P. No. 1, due to which he has been compelled to bear the financial burden on account of day to day penalties for non-registration of the same. He has also served a legal notice upon the O.Ps. on 5.8.2014, but to no use. Hence, this complaint.

3.                 On being put to notice, the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 filed a joint written statement, taking preliminary objections; that the complaint does not lie and the same is not maintainable against the answering O.Ps., as the same has been filed on the basis of false & frivolous facts just to pressurize the answering O.Ps. not to claim the balance sale consideration of the car purchased by him and not to ask him for completion of formalities in respect of the old Safari LX vehicle, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed with special, heavy costs for dragging the answering O.Ps. into this unnecessary & uncalled for litigation; that the complainant is not ‘consumer’ of the answering O.Ps. and has no cause of action & locus standi to file the present complaint; that he has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.Ps. as all the documents have been supplied to the complainant. On merits, the factum of purchase of the car in question by the complainant from the answering O.Ps. and getting the same insured by the complainant himself is admitted. It is stated that on the very date of purchase of the car in question, its delivery was made to complainant. Temporary registration number was also given to him alongwith the documents i.e sale invoice & registration documents. Owner’s manual, dealer directory & set of keys were also supplied to him regarding which he had also signed some documents including the inspection card stating that he had examined the vehicle & found no defect in it and had also given undertaking that he was satisfied with the vehicle & documents. This also proves that he had received the car documents. As per Govt. notification, the registration of the newly sold vehicle is to be given by the agency concerned, as such, the complainant was to supply the requisite documents to the answering O.Ps. being the dealer of the vehicle for the purpose of registration of the same, but he has neither returned the requisite documents for registration of the car nor paid the registration fees for the said purpose. It is also admitted that the complainant had handed over his old Safari LX vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-20C-6100 to the answering O.Ps. for selling the same. It is further stated that the complainant had paid only a sum of Rs.1,51,500/- towards the sale price of the Grand i10 car purchased by him and remaining amount was to be adjusted into the sale price of the old vehicle given by him. As per evaluation of the said Safar LX vehicle, its value has been assessed at Rs.3,00,000/- as on 27.5.2014, whereas he is assuming the value of the same as Rs.3,50,000/-. He is, thus, still to pay the balance payment towards the sale consideration of the car in question. He is mischievous person and has played mischief with the answering O.Ps. and has also defrauded them as he has firstly not made the payment of the balance sale consideration of Grand i10 car and secondly, he has neither supplied the complete documents of the old Safari LX vehicle nor completed the formalities regarding the same, as he has refused to fill-in the forms regarding pre-owned cars and has not even submitted NOC after getting  his old vehicle freed from hypothecation agreement, because the same was got financed by him from State Bank of Patiala Una, Distt. Una (HP). There is, thus, lapse on the part of the complainant himself. He is not entitled to any discount or concession offered by the Company on the said car. The question of extra charges by the answering O.Ps. does not arise at all. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.Ps., as all the documents have already been supplied to the complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with heavy costs.

4.                The O.P. No. 3 filed a separate written statement, taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering O.P. and is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that neither any cause of action has arisen against the answering O.P. nor any allegation has been leveled against it in the complaint and it has been unnecessarily been impleaded as a party; that the relationship of the answering O.P. with all its dealers is on principal-to-principal basis and not as a principal-to-agent, bec      ause the cars are purchased by the dealers, including the O.P. No. 1,  from the answering O.P. against payment and thereafter, the same are sold by the concerned dealer to the customers, therefore, for the error/omission, if any, while retailing or servicing the car, or making misrepresentation, if any, is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer and the answering O.P. cannot be held liable for acts & omissions of the concerned dealer; that since the complainant has not raised any allegation regarding the performance of the car, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the answering O.P. and that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, as no cause of action has arisen against the answering O.P. in favour of the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. On merits, it is submitted that all the transactions were done inter-se, the complainant and the O.P. No. 1, in which the answering O.P. had played no role. That is why the complainant has not even made any allegation against the answering O.P. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, against the answering O.P. with exemplary costs.

5.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex. C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Sh. S.K. Chhabra, Managing Director, Ex.OP-1, photocopies of documents Ex.OP-2 to OP-18 and closed the evidence, whereas the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3 tendered affidavit dated 18.12.2014 of Sh. Manish Kumar, Assistant Manager, Ex.OP-19 and closed the evidence.

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

7.               The first limb of arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant was that on 26.5.2014, the complainant had purchased the car in question from the O.P. No. 1 for a sum of Rs.5,17,000/- inclusive of insurance premium, however, the complainant got it insured himself and as such, in total, he was to pay a sum of Rs.5,01,000/-. In exchange offer, he handed over his old TATA Safari car to the O.P. No.1, value of which was assessed by it as Rs.3,50,000/- and rest of the amount of Rs.1,51,000/- was paid through cheque drawn upon HDFC bank, which was encashed on 30.5.2014. Hence, the allegation of the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 is baseless that the complainant is still to pay the balance amount. In rebuttal to the said allegation of the complainant, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 submitted that the price of old TATA Safari car of the complainant was evaluated at Rs.3,00,000/- only and the complainant is still liable to pay the balance sale consideration of the car in question purchased by him from the O.P. No.1.

                  From the perusal of undertaking, Ex. OP9, which is duly signed by the complainant, it is evident that the price of the old TATA Safari car has been mentioned as Rs.3,50,000/-. There is no other document from which it can be inferred that the price of the said TATA Safari car was assessed at Rs.3,00,000/- only. Therefore, the stand of the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 that the price of old TATA Safari car of the complainant was evaluated at Rs.3,00,000/- only and he is still liable to pay the balance sale consideration of the car in question purchased by him from the O.P. No.1 gets falsified and we do not hesitate to conclude that nothing is due from the complainant towards sale consideration of the car purchased by him from the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2.

8.               The next limb of arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant was that as per Service Book, the tyres fitted in the car purchased by the complainant should have been of Apollo brand, whereas the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 had delivered him the car fitted with the Goodyear tyres. The difference of price between the Goodyear and Apollo tyres is Rs.700/-, as such, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.3500/- on that account and the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 are liable to pay the said amount to him. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 submitted that the complainant has not placed on record the Service Book, on the basis of which he has leveled the above said allegation and he has failed to prove the allegation leveled by him.

        It may be stated that the complainant has not produced on record the copy of the Service Book, on the basis of which he is alleging that the tyres fitted in his car should have been of Apollo brand. Nodoubt, in the copy of Vehicle Report Sheet, Ex. C3, the Tyres Make has been mentioned as Appollo and the said document finds stamp of Bhakhra Service Station (P) Ltd. Ropar, but it is not signed by any authorized person on behalf of the said company. The complainant has also placed on record a copy of Key Features, Ex. C5, wherein no specific Make of the Tyres fitted in the car in question has been mentioned. Even otherwise, he has not placed on record the photo of the tyres fitted in the car in question, from where it can be said that the tyres fitted in it are of Goodyear. Be that as it may, we do not find any substance in this argument of the learned counsel for the complainant, hence, rejected.

9.               The next limb of arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant was that the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 have charged a sum of Rs.4500/- from him towards logistic charges illegally. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 submitted that the price/all the charges for the car in question purchased by the complainant were charged as per Company’s rates and no excess amount was charged from him.

        The complainant himself has placed on record a copy of Price List of the company for 2013-14(11) w.e.f. 06.05.2014 (Ex.C2) in which the logistic charges are mentioned as Rs.4500/-. Thus, it cannot be said that the logistic charges of Rs.4500/- have been charged from the complainant, unnecessarily. Accordingly, this contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is also without any force and hence, rejected.

10.              The next limb of the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant is that inspite of the fact that no amount towards sale consideration of the car in question purchased by him from the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 is due to be paid by him, the said O.Ps. have not provided him the original sale certificate etc., due to which he could not get the said car registered till date, therefore, the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 be directed to deliver the original bill alongwith other requisite documents. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 submitted that all the documents including the sale bill/invoice had already been supplied to the complainant, the same is evident from the documents already placed on record.

                   It is pertinent to mention here that from the perusal of the New Vehicle Handover Form (Ex. OP-7), it is evident that all the documents including the sale bill/invoice were supplied to him. The said document also bears signatures of the complainant. Not only this, at the time of taking delivery of the car in question, the complainant himself had given undertaking (Ex. OP9), which is also duly signed by him, to the effect that he was fully satisfied with the vehicle and had received documents of the said vehicle complete in all respects. It is not the case of the complainant that the aforesaid documents do not bear his signatures. In these circumstances, the allegation of the complainant to that effect stands falsified, consequently, this contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is found to be meritless.

          With the above said facts & circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 and complaint against them is liable to be dismissed. So far as the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No. 3 i.e. the manufacturer of the said car, is concerned, no specific allegation has been leveled against it by the complainant. Even otherwise, the main grouse of the complainant was regarding non-supply of the original sale certificate, which had to be issued by the dealer only and not by the manufacturer, therefore, the complaint against O.P. No. 3 is also liable to be dismissed.

11.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint against all the O.Ps. is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

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                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 24.04.2015                                               PRESIDENT

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.