Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/281

Surinder Sahara - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Alok Mohindra Adv.

29 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:281 dated 10.06.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 29.11.2023.

 

Surinder Sohar S/o. Sh. Darshan Kumar Sohar, R/o. 70, Vishal Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., Savitri Complex-I, G.T. Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana, through its MD/Chairman/Authorized Officer.
2. Vaneet Sharma, Sales Manager, M/s. Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., Savitri Complex-I, G.T. Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana       .                                                                                                                  …..Opposite parties

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Inder Mohan Pal Singh, Law Officer.

For OP2                         :         Complaint against OP2 not admitted vide order                                           dated 27.06.2019.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 08.03.2019, the complainant purchased Tata Zest XE QJET 75PS BS4 car from the showroom of OP1, where OP2 is working as Sales Manager. At the time of purchase, OP1 represented that they are providing a special offer of discount of Rs.90,000/- on total price of car to all its customers who will be purchasing 2018 model car in the year 2019 i.e. the model of the previous year with additional offer of Rs.15,000/- as exchange bonus in case the complainant gives in exchange his old car for the new car to be purchased from it. The OPs provided the details of the offer to the complainant on printed calculation chart, which is reproduced as under:-

1.	Ex-showroom Price of the car	Rs.6,88,721/-
2.	Insurance Premium (Dap Cap + 3 Year Third Party)	Rs.41,895/-
3.	Stock Yard Charges	Rs.5500/-
4.	Accessory Pack	Rs.3000/-
5.	Cow Cess	Rs.1,000/-
6.	Fastag	Rs.600/-
7.	Possession Tax	Rs.160/-
8.	Road Tax and RC	Rs.49,822/-
	Total	Rs.7,90,698/-

 

The OPs further assured the complainant that they will be providing the best services and the complainant will not face any problem from their side. Believing the representations of the OPs, the complainant agreed to purchase the new car from OP1 in exchange of his old car. As per demand of OP1, the complainant had to pay Rs.5,35,698/- after deducting Rs.1,65,000/- i.e. price of old car and discount of Rs.90,000/- but OP1 received a round figure of Rs.5,35,000/- instead of Rs.5,35,698/-as full and final price. The complainant further stated that he got the car financed from Canara Bank and he paid Rs.4,00,000/- through bank and Rs.1,35,000/- was paid personally and after making payment, the delivery of car was given to him by OP1. At that time, the complainant asked the OPs to give cover note of insurance policy and break of the amount, but he astonished to go through the breakup in which he found the discrepancies, which are reproduced as under:-

1. That as per the calculation chart, the insurance that was included in the price of the vehicle was one year full Dep Cap insurance plus third party insurance for three years.
2. That the insurance amount that was included in the calculation chart was Rs.41,895/- but the actual insurance amount shown in the insurance policy is Rs.24,600/-
3. That the accessory kit for Rs.3000/- was to be given to the complainant and the said amount is included in the calculation chart as per which the amount was paid by the complainant but no such accessory kit was given to the complainant.
4. That the ex-showroom price of the car as per the amount received from the complainant is Rs.6,88,721/- but in the insurance policy, the said amount has been shown as Rs.6,49,620/-.
5. That the exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- as promised by the  OPs had not been given to the complainant.

On pointing out the said anomalies and shortcomings and the difference in amounts to the OPs, they refused to listen to the complainant despite his repeated visits and complaints. According to the complainant, he had been made to pay excess amount to the OPs due to which he has suffered harassment, inconvenience, financial loss etc. on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to supply all the goods which were to supplied at the time of delivery of the vehicle; to pay the amount of exchange bonus; to get the insurance policy for the promised period; to deliver the registration certificate of the vehicle besides to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and interest @18% per annum.

2.                The complaint against OP2 not admitted vide order dated 27.06.2019.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 filed written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability of complaint and concealment of material facts.  OP1 stated that the complainant approached it for purchase of Tata ZEST XE on 06.03.2019 and he was given applicable discount on 2018 model car. The price list attached by the complainant was the offer price of the vehicle and the complainant purchased the vehicle after bargaining and availing the maximum discount on the vehicle. The deal was finalized between the complainant and OP1. The price of the car was Rs.6,63,846/-, insurance of the car was Rs.24,208/-, Rs.600/- was for Fast tag, Rs.49,513/- was registration charges of the vehicle, Rs.4628/- was for accessories of the vehicle; Rs.160 for MV tax of the vehicle, Rs.1000/- was for Cow cess and Rs.5500/- was for stock yard charges and administrative charges. The total amount payable by the complainant was Rs.7,49,455/-. According to OP1, the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- as advance vide receipt No.2288 dated 06.03.2019, Rs.1,15,000/- vide receipt No.2387 dated 07.09.2019, Rs.4,00,000/- through NEFT on 08.03.2019. The total amount deposited by the complainant was Rs.5,35,000/-. The complainant exchanged his old car for Rs.1,40,000/- and total amount paid by him became Rs.6,75,000/-. OP1 further stated that Rs.74,455/- (cash discount Rs.30,000/-, Concession Rs.24,327/-, Exchange bonus Rs.15,500/- and accessories Rs.4628/-) was given as discount to the complainant and nothing extra has been charged by OP1 from the complainant.

                   On merits, OP1 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and facts of the case. OP1 admitted the fact of purchasing car by the complainant on 08.03.2019. However, OP1 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex. C2 is the copy of policy schedule cum receipt, Ex. C3 is the copy of provisional registration certificate, Ex. C4 is the copy of price list of the cars and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Inder Mohan Pal Singh, Law Officer of OP1 along with documents Ex.  OP1&2/1 is the copy of letter dated 08.03.2019 of the complainant regarding delivery of vehicle, Ex.  OP1&2/2 is the copy of scheme of the month, Ex.  OP1&2/3 is the copy customer acknowledgement note for availing exchange bonus scheme, Ex.  OP1&2/4 is the copy extended warranty offer, Ex.  OP1&2/5 is the copy satisfaction note, Ex.  OP1&2/6 is the copy letter dated 08.03.2019 of the complainant for confirmation of 2018 model chassis, Ex.  OP1&2/7 is the copy feedback form  and closed the evidence.

                   During the course of proceedings, OP1 filed application for additional evidence, which was allowed vide order dated 25.09.2023. OP1 tendered documents i.e. Ex. RX is the copy of tax invoice dated 08.03.2019, Ex. RX/1 is the copy of Bank Receipt (PCD) Byepass Voucher, Ex. RX/2 is the copy of Receipt (PCD) Voucher, Ex. RX/3 is the copy of Bank Receipt (PCD) Byepass Voucher, Ex. RX/4 is the copy of invoice dated 31.03.2019 and closed the additional evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statements along with documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased a 2018 model Tata Zest XE car from OP1 on 06.03.2019 by way of exchange of his old car. At the time of purchase, the complainant was offered item wise price/rate but at the time of delivery, the price of certain items was at variance with the offered price. In fact, the offered quotation price of the car is Rs.6,88,721/- as per price list Ex. C4, but in fact the invoice value is Rs.6,63,846.00 after concession and adjustment/exchange of the old car. The insured value of the car is always calculated on the invoice value. Had the ex-showroom price was quoted as Rs.6,88,721/- and ID value must have been greater than the invoice value. So due to this, the reduction in Insured Declared Value continued in subsequent year which had the direct impact on the market value of the car on road.

7.                Further the insurance premium of Rs.41,895/- was charged by the OPs but in fact Rs.24,208/- as premium of insurance was paid and this fact can be perused from insurance policy Ex. C1. As such, OP1 has charged Rs.17,687/- in excess from the complainant.

8.                Further the accessories pack as per price list/quotation Ex. C4 was mentioned as Rs.3,000/- but OP1 charged Rs.4,628/- as accessories as admitted by OP1 in its written statement. The case of the complainant is that he was not actually supplied with the accessories as promised. This amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP1 for which the complainant is liable to be compensated. As such, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate of OP1 is directed to pay composite compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to OP1 to pay composite compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum on the said amount from the date of order till its actual payment. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.        

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                         Member                              President

         

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:29.11.2023.

Gobind Ram.