Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/379

Vikram Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Brars Hyundai - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Jindal

06 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                     379 of 2017

Date of Institution:         21.11.2017

Date of Decision :          06.02.2019

 

Vikram Gupta aged about 33 years son of Mohinder Gupta resident of 82/4-B, Aggarwal Street, Near Ajanta Academy, Faridkot. Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Brars Hyundai, (A Unit of Hyundai Motor India Limited, Brar Automotive) (Authorized Dealer), Kotkapura Road, Faridkot. Tehsil and District Faridkot through its Authorised Person/Responsible Person.
2. Hyundai Motor India Limited, 2^nd, 5^th & 6^th Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building), Plot No. 5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi, Delhi, India, Pin Code – 110025 through its Managing Director/ Director/ Responsible Person/ Authorized Person.
3. Brar Hyundai ( A Unit of Brar Automotive), (Authorized Dealer), Near Bhai Maha Singh College, Kotkapura Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

                                            ....Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Jatinder Marria, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                   Sh Paramjit Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                   

Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

                  OP-3 Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to them to release Registration Certificate, second key and other documents for his car and to refund the amount of Rs.24,941/- excessively charged by them alongwith interest and for further directing them to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant complainant purchased a car make Hyundai Creta on 4.10.2017 from OP-1 for Rs.16,32,000/-from which Rs.14,66,552/-is ex-showroom price, Rs.71,000/-for insurance, Rs.98,000/-for Registration Certificate and Rs.3,552/-as discount.OP-1 is the dealer from whom complainant purchased the car in question and OP-2 is its manufacturer. It is submitted that at the time of purchase OPs assured about the guarantee, warrantee and after sale services, but despite payment of huge amount of Rs.16,32,000/-to them, they have not provided registration certificate for his car and even have not given him provisional RC which they assured to furnish within 15 days. OPs have not completed requisite formalities of depositing fee with Transport Office for procuring RC for his vehicle. It is further alleged that OPs have failed to provide proper bills, margin receipts, second keys which are mandatory for safety of every car and basic car kit to complainant. It is further contended by complainant counsel that OPs charged Rs.24,941/- in excess from complainant on account of insurance, RC and car price, which is totally illegal on their part. Anti rust coating was also not got done by OPs, rather they told complainant to get it done himself and it was got done by complainant himself from Sri Muktsar Sahib and he had to go to another district without any papers and even delivery of car was given to him after prolonged delay. After purchase of said car, OPs started ignoring complainant and even did not pick up the telephonic calls made by him for making requests to OPs to provide better services. Despite repeated requests, OPs did not give him second keys of car and basic car kit and even not procured the RC without which complainant is unable to take his vehicle to distant places. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.11.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                       OP filed-1 reply wherein took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and it is totally wrong that answering OP charged Rs.24,941/-in excess from complainant. it is averred that showroom price of car is Rs.14,58,984/-, insurance charges is Rs.69,943/-, registration charges Rs.81,684/-and TCS amount is Rs.14,590/- and as per scheme launched in 2017, cars the cost of which exceeds Rs.10 lacs, on such cars 1%  tax on showroom price is charged and is used to deposit in the Income Tax Department. Total amount comes to Rs.16,25,201/- and complainant has deposited total of Rs.16,25,000/- vide draft dated 7.10.2017 for Rs.9,75,000/- and cheque dated 7.10.2017 and 10.10.2017 for Rs. 4 lacs and Rs.2,50,000/- lacs respectively. All amount charged is clearly as per bill issued to him. Document given to complainant showing the detail of car price is only rough estimate. It is submitted that complainant after verification from other Companies again consulted answering OP and stated that car rate is cheaper at Ludhiana than of answering Op and then, answering OP agreed to give the car to complainant on lesser rate. On 6.10.2017, answering OP got insured the car of complainant for Rs.69,943/-. It is further averred that complainant wanted to have fancy number for his car and only task on the part of OP was to deposit the road tax through online system and remaining process was to be done by complainant himself by completing formalities of moving application and others in the District Transport Office, Faridkot. Complainant purchased the car from OP-1 on 5.10.2017 and they completed all formalities on same day and also handed over all facilities or incentives connected therewith to complainant.  On 9.10.2017, complainant himself appeared before DTO, Faridkot, moved application for fancy number and deposited fees of Rs.5500/-for obtaining fancy number. On 10.10.2017, complainant deposited Rs.2,50,000/-in the account of OP and gave his I D Proof to them on 14.10.2017 and on 15.10.2017, OP-1 deposited tax with DTO and handed him over requisite file and thereafter, other formalities were to be done by complainant. It is asserted that normally provisional RC number is issued at the time of delivery. It is further submitted that in detail submitted by complainant, amount of TCS i.e Rs.14,590/-is not included. OP-1 sternly denied the allegation of complainant that basic car kit was not given to him and asserted that car kit along with requisite documents and delivery challan was also issued to him at the time of delivery of car in question. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                        OP-2 also filed reply wherein took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false, baseless and is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action arises against answering OP. It is averred that complainant has not made Service Centre of Sri Muktsar Sahib as necessary party in present complaint. Complainant has himself mentioned in his complaint that he  took delivery of car from there and anti rust was done on his car by service centre at Sri Muktsar Sahib and even delivery challan, one insurance paper and two items of basic kit out of 5 were delivered to complainant by them, but he has not impleaded them as necessary party and thus, complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party and is therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that answering OP has not received any consideration from complainant and thus, no privity of contract exists between them and complainant is not their consumer. As per OP-2, it deals with its dealers on principal to principal basis and it is not liable for any errors, omissions or commissions done by dealer as it is the sole responsibility of dealer concerned. Liability of OP-2 extends only to its warranty obligations alone and nowhere in the complaint, complainant has alleged any manufacturing defect in said car. It is further averred that answering OP acts on principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent basis. As per information received from OP-1, at the time of delivery, complainant stated to the Sale Executive that he wanted to put fancy number on his vehicle from RTO, Faridkot and number from RTO,FAridkot was allotted to him on 9.10.2017 and dealer had already provided him consumer docket number at the time of delivery. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum. There is no defect in car in question and present complaint is an abuse of process of law and moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. However, on merits, OP-2 have denied all the allegations of complainant and reiterated that there is no manufacturing defect in car in question and asserted no excess amount was ever received from complainant, rather complainant has paid Rs.201/-less to dealer. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. All the other allegations are also refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6                                 Notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-3 through registered cover, but did not receive back undelivered and presumed to be served and acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. Despite repeated calls nobody appeared in the Forum on date fixed on behalf of OP-3 either in person or through counsel and therefore, vide order dated 21.08.2018, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte.

7                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-21 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                      To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jagdeep Singh Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 10 and closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukomal Satyen Ex OP-2/1 and document Ex OP-2/2 and also closed the same.

9                                                                                From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that case of the complainant is that he purchased a car make Hyundai Creta on 4.10.2017 from OP-1 for Rs.16,32,000/-from which Rs.14,66,552/- is ex-showroom price, Rs.71,000/-for insurance, Rs.98,000/- for Registration Certificate and Rs.3,552/- as discount.OP-1 is the dealer from and OP-2 is its manufacturer. Grievance of complainant is that despite several visits and repeated requests to Ops, they have not provided him Registration Certificate of car and have also failed to provide second key, basic tool kit and other documents of car. Moreover, OPs charged Rs.24,941/-in excess from complainant. Action of Ops in not providing him bills, second keys of car and basic car kit items and charging excess amount of Rs.24,941/-by them from complainant on account of insurance, RC and car price, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. On the other hand, plea taken by OP-1 in reply is that showroom price of car is Rs.14,58,984/-, insurance charges is Rs.69,943/-, registration charges Rs.81,684/- and TCS amount is Rs.14,590/- and as per scheme launched in 2017, cars the cost of which exceeds Rs.10 lacs, on such cars 1%  tax on showroom price is charged and is used to deposit in the Income Tax Department. Total amount comes to Rs.16,25,201/- and complainant paid Rs.16,25,000/- and this amount is clearly as per bill issued to him. Document produced by complainant showing the detail of car price is only rough estimate. OP got insured the car of complainant for Rs.69,943/-. Complainant wanted to have fancy number for his car and only work to be done by OP-1 was to deposit the road tax through online system and remaining process was to be done by complainant himself. He purchased the car from OP-1 on 5.10.2017 and they completed all formalities on same day and also handed over all facilities or incentives connected therewith to complainant.  On 9.10.2017, complainant moved application before DTO, Faridkot for fancy number and deposited requisite charges of Rs.5500/-for obtaining fancy number. On 14.10.2017, complainant gave his I D Proof to them and on 15.10.2017, OP-1 deposited tax and handed him over requisite file and thereafter, remaining formalities were to be done by complainant. It is asserted that normally provisional RC number is issued at the time of delivery. It is further submitted that in detail submitted by complainant, amount of TCS i.e Rs.14,590/-is not included. OP-1 sternly denied the allegation of complainant that basic car kit was not given to him and asserted that car kit along with requisite documents and delivery challan was also issued to him at the time of delivery of car in question. It is totally wrong that answering OP charged Rs.24,941/-in excess from complainant.  All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. There is no deficiency in service on their part. OP-2 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and stressed mainly on the point that liability of OP-2 extends only to its warranty obligations and nowhere in the complaint, complainant has alleged any manufacturing defect in said car. Moreover Op-2 acts on principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent basis and is not responsible for any act of omission, commission or representation done by dealer. Matter in dispute is between complainant and OP-1 and they are not liable for any wrong representation done by OP-1. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

 10                                          The first grievance of the complainant is that OP-1 charged Rs.24,941/-in excess from him on  account of price of car, insurance and registration charges. he argued that as per estimate given by Opposite Party to complainant car was of Rs.16,32,200/- out of which Rs.14,66,552/-was ex showroom price of car, Rs.71,000/- as insurance, Rs.98,000/- as registration charges and Rs.3,552/-were given as discount, whereas as per bill, ex showroom price of car is 14,58,984/-, insurance Rs.69,943/-, registration charges Rs.81,684/-. As such, OP-1 charged Rs.24,941/-in excess from complainant. on the other hand, ld counsel for OP-1 argued that they have not charged anything in excess from complainant. Ex Show Room Price of the car is Rs.14,58,984/-, Insurance Rs.69,943/-, registration charges Rs.81,684/-, TCS (Tax Collected at Source) at the rate of 1% Rs.14,590/-, which is levied on the cars the rate of which exceeds Rs. 10 lacs and to be deposited in the Income Tax Department. The total amount comes to Rs.16,25,201/-and the complainant has paid Rs.9,75,000/-through demand draft and Rs. 4 lacs through cheque dated 7.10.2017 and Rs.2.50 lacs through cheque dated 10.10.2017 and thus, total amount becomes Rs.16,25,000/- which Rs.201 less than total bill and except this, complainant has not paid anything more to OPs. As such, they have not charged anything in excess from him. To prove the payment, complainant has produced copy of account statement Ex C-5, which reveals that complainant has made payment to the extent of Rs,16,25,000/- to OP-1 as admitted by them. complainant has not produced any evidence that he made any other payment to OPs. As such, we come to the conclusion that OP-1 has not received any payment in excess from complainant on account of price of the car, insurance and registration charges and these allegations of complainant has no footing.

11                                Second grievance of the complainant is that OPs did not provide him RC, second key of car, basic tool kit and other documents of the car. OP-1 denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and argued that complainant purchased car in question from them on 5.10.2017, he wanted fancy number for his car and in that case, the duty of OP-1 is only to deposit the registration fees with DTO, Faridkot and handover the file to complainant. other formalities were to be done by the complainant himself. The complainant deposited fees for fancy number on 9.10.2017 and deposited the balance sale consideration with OP-1 on 10.10.2017. Complainant submitted his Identity Proofs with OP-1 on 14.10.2017 which are necessary to deposit the tax and thereafter, OPs deposited the tax with DTO on 15.10.2017 and handed over the file to complainant. the other formalities such as handing over the second key, basic tool kit of the car, were immediately delivered to the complainant on 5.10.2017 at the time of giving delivery of the vehicle in question to him. Ld counsel for complainant denied the version of OP-1 and argued that OP-1 have not handed him over the second key of car, basic tool kit, registration certificate and other documents of the car till today.

12                              We have thoroughly gone through the file. Admittedly, complainant purchased the car in question from OP-1 on 5.10.2017 and he paid requisite fees for fancy number to DTO on 9.10.2017. He has already paid registration charges to OP-1 and it was the duty of OP-1 to deposit registration charges online with District Transport Office but they deposited this amount with DTO on 15.10.2017 i.e 10 days late from the date of delivery of the car, even about one week after deposit of fees for fancy number by complainant with DTO and retained this amount with them without any explanation. Further, OP-1 failed to prove that they have delivered the second key, basic tool kit and other documents regarding car to complainant. all these acts of OP-1 amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, present complaint is hereby allowed against OP-1. OP-1 is directed to handover the second key of car, basic tool kit and service booklet of car in question to complainant. OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs.12,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. OP-2 is the manufacturer and in present complaint, complainant has not made any allegation regarding any manufacturing defect in car manufactured by OP-2 and it is observed that OP-2 is not liable for the conduct or any act done by dealer. Therefore, complaint against OP-2 stands hereby dismissed. There seems to be no role of OP-3 in redressing grievance of complainant and therefore, complaint against OP-3 also stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 6.02.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)  

          Member                               President