BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 13 of 23.01.2015

                               Date of decision                 : 28.04.2015

Dharam Singh, Son of  Pritam Singh, resident of Village Sadhewal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

                                                                             ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. CM Auto Sales on National Highway 21, Tehsil & District Ropar,

    through its Manager.

2. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Head Office at 1, Nelson Mandela Road,

    Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110070, through its Managing Director.

                                                                            ....Opposite Parties

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

Sh. Deepak Dharmani, Advocate, counsel for complainant

Sh. Pardeep Mittal Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party No. 1

Opposite Party No. 2 ex-parte

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

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

i)       To return the excess amounts charged from him i.e. Rs.28,876/- charged in excess of the invoice amount, Rs.3115/- charged towards handling charges & Rs.9,252/- charged towards optional extended warranty, 

ii)      To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain/ agony, inconvenience, etc. caused to him,

iii)     To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost,

iv)     To pay interest @18% P.A. on the above said amounts w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had approached the O.P. No.1 for purchase of a brand new Maruti Swift VDI  car and the O.P. No. 1 issued quotation dated 01.10.2014 for the said car  worth Rs.6,74,708/-. On the basis of the said quotation, he got prepared a demand draft No.725975 dated 17.10.2014 from State Bank of Patiala, Anandpur Sahib, in favour of the O.P. No.1 for a sum of Rs.6,74,708/-, by obtaining loan from the said bank.  On 18.10.2014, he purchased the said car  from the O.P. No. 1, and delivered the said demand draft to it, whose salesman got his signatures on various papers and the O.P. No.1 issued a vat invoice/bill  for the said car worth Rs.6,45,832/-. Thereafter, in the month of December, 2014, when he checked the documents of his car for the purpose of obtaining security number plat, then he came to know about the fact that the O.P. No. 1 had charged the amount more than that mentioned in the invoice/bill, which was issued only for Rs.6,45,832/-, whereas it had received Rs.6,74,708/-. In this way, the O.P. No.1 had received  a sum of Rs.28,876/- extra, than the actual price of the said car, without any reason. It is further stated that he never demanded extended warranty, which was optional, but the O.P. No. 1 had charged from him an amount of Rs.9252/- for the said purpose and had also charged a sum of Rs.3115/- towards handling charges,  wrongly. Accordingly, he went to the office of the O.P. No. 1 and complained that it had received the excesses money than the actual price of the said car, but its salesman did not give any satisfactory reply. The O.Ps. have, thus, committed deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice, due to which he has suffered a lot of mental pain/agony & financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. No.1 filed written statement in the shape of affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, the Managing Director, taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the instant complaint and the same is not maintainable & is liable to be dismissed; that the answering O.P. has been unnecessarily dragged into this frivolous & false litigation, as there has been no deficiency in service on its part. On merits, it is admitted that the price of the car in question  was Rs.6,45,832/-. It is stated that from the complainant, an amount of Rs.200/- was charged for temporary number plate, an amount of Rs.22861/- was charged as insurance charges, an amount of Rs.40,446/- was charged for accessories, thus, in total a sum of Rs.7,09,339/- was charged from him. Against the said amount of Rs.7,09,339/-, the answering O.P. had received a sum of Rs.2000/- as advance booking, Rs.29,631/- in cash for accessories, Rs.6,74,708/- through cheque, from the complainant and a bonus of Rs.3000/- was given to him on account of exchange of old car, thus, in total a sum of Rs.7,09,339/- was charged from him and the account was cleared. It is well within the knowledge of the complainant that the charges of the accessories were extra and he himself got fitted the same in his car and that is why he had paid Rs.29,631/- in cash, as remaining amount due towards the accessories, after adjustment of the amount paid by him through demand draft i.e. Rs.6,74,708/-. Thus, no amount was received, in excess, by the answering O.P. from the complainant.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof with costs, it being without any merit.

4.                The O.P. No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.3.2015.

 5.               On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10  and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, M.D., CM Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Ex.OP-1, photocopies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the contesting O.P. No. 1 and gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that as per quotation dated 1.10.2014 given by the O.P. No.1, the price of a brand new Maruti Swift VDI car was Rs.6,74,708/-. Accordingly, on 17.10.2014, the complainant got prepared a demand draft for the said amount in favour of the O.P.  No. 1, for purchase of the said car. On 18.10.2014, by making payment through the aforesaid demand draft, he purchased the said car from the O.P. No.1. However, the O.P. No. 1 had issued an invoice/bill for the same in the sum of Rs.6,45,832/- only. In this way, the O.P. No. 1 had charged an excess amount of Rs.28,876/-. Not only this, the complainant had never demanded extended warranty, which was optional, but the said O.P. had charged a sum of Rs.9252/- for the said extended warranty and also a sum of Rs.3115/- towards handling charges, unnecessarily, therefore, the O.P. No.1 be directed to refund the said amounts and to pay compensation for mental agony and inconvenience caused to him, alongwith litigation expenses.

8.                On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 submitted that no extra amount was charged from the complainant because the price of the car was Rs.6,45,832/-, Rs.200/- was charged for temporary number plate, an amount of Rs.22861/- was charged as insurance charges, an amount of Rs.40,446/- was charged for accessories, thus, in total a sum of Rs.7,09,339/- was to be charged from him. The O.P. No. 1 had received a sum of Rs.2000/- as advance booking, Rs. 29,631/- in cash towards remaining amount of the accessories, Rs.6,74,708/- through demand draft, i.e. in total a sum of Rs.7,06,339/- and after giving a bonus of Rs.3000/- on account of exchange of the old car, the account of the complainant was clear. In this way, the O.P. No. 1 had rightly charged a sum of Rs.7,09,339/- in total from him. The allegation of the complainant that the O.P. No. 1 had charged a sum of Rs.9252/- for the said extended warranty and a sum of Rs.3115/- towards handling charges, unnecessarily, is also a mere allegation because the extended warranty was given at his request and accordingly, Invoice-cum-Certificate of Extended Warranty Registration dated 18.10.2014 (Ex. C7) was issued for which a sum of Rs.9252.85 was charged from him rightly. The amount of Rs.3115/- towards handling charges, was also charged as per the norms, rightly. Thus, nothing is refundable to the complainant, therefore, the complaint being without any merit be dismissed with costs.

9.                So far as the grouse of the complainant that the O.P. No.1 had charged a sum of Rs.6,74,708/- instead of the actual price of the car in question i.e. Rs.6,45,832/- is misconceived & baseless because the O.P. No.1 had fairly admitted that the price of car was Rs.6,45,832/- only and a sum of Rs.200/- was charged towards temporary number plate, Rs.22,861/- towards insurance charges and an amount of Rs.40,446/- was charged towards accessories, i.e. in total a sum of Rs.7,09,339/-. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.6,74,708/- through demand draft and a sum of  Rs.2000/- was paid by him towards advance booking of the said car. After giving him the bonus of Rs.3000/- towards exchange of the old car, he was to pay the remaining amount of Rs.29,631/- towards the cost of accessories, which he had paid, in cash, to the O.P. No.1, thus, in total a sum of Rs.7,09,339/- was charged and his account stood cleared. The detailed calculation sheet about the above said adjustments was also produced on record by the learned counsel for the contesting O.P. No.1, during the course of arguments, which is now marked as ‘A’ for ready reference. 

10.              So far as the other grouse of the complainant that he had never demanded extended warranty, which was optional, but the O.P. No.1  had charged a sum of Rs.9252/- for the said extended warranty and that the said O.P. had also charged another sum of Rs.3115/- towards handling charges, unnecessarily, is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that he has not placed on record any document to prove that he had not opted for extended warranty. He has also not placed on record any document to prove that the handling charges of Rs.3115/- were charged from him, illegally, against the set norms by the O.P. No.1. Consequently, this grouse of the complainant is also found to be misconceived & baseless and nothing is refundable to him by the O.P. No.1.

11.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint against the O.P. No. 1 is liable to be dismissed. Nodoubt, the complainant has also impeladed the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. as O.P. No. 2 in the array of the O.Ps., but neither any allegation against it has been made in the complaint nor any specific relief against it has been sought, therefore, the complaint against O.P. No. 2 is also liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the complaint against both the O.Ps. is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

12.              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 the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 28.04.2015                                       PRESIDENT

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER.