BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.326 of 2014
Date of Instt. 16.09.2014
Date of Decision: 22.11.2017
Ms. Megha Malhotra wife of Sh. Yogesh Malhotra resident of 459, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar
..........Complainant
Versus
1. DADA NISSAN, DADA MOTORS, G.T. Road, Opposite Haveli, Jalandhar-144005, through its Chairman/Managing Director/Partners S/Sh. Suraj Dada, Nitin Dada and Rishi Dada.
2. Nissan Motor India Private Limited, Registered Corporate Office, 37/38 ASV Ramana Towers, 3rd Floor, Opposite H.P. Petrol Pump & Opposite Way to Devar Statue, Venkatanaryana Road, T. Nagar, Cheennai-600017 through its C.E.O. Mr. Takayuki Ishida.
….… Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. IS Bhatia, Adv Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. AK Walia, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1.
Sh. KS Minhas, Adv Counsel for the OP No.2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that Nissan Motor India Private Limited, a company duly incorporated under 'The Companies Act', circulated advertisements through various Television Channels, Newspapers as well as by hand bills claiming that this company is manufacturing and marketing one of the finest cars marketed under brand name Micra and also offered discount on the same. The OP No.1 also issued a bait advertisement in various newspapers and also circulated hand bills claiming that it is an authorized dealer of the OP No.2 for the territory of Jalandhar and offered a discount of Rs.80,000/- on the purchase of Nissan Micra Diesel Car. The advertisement issued in the News paper quoted the ex-show room price of the Nissan Micra Mc Dci XE car at Rs.5,86,000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that ex-show room price of a car is its maximum retail price. The complainant allured so made by the OP No.1, the complainant approached the OP No.1 for purchase of Nissan Micra Mc Dci XE car on 23.12.2013. The OP No.1 gave a copy of the Nissan vehicle price list to the complainant, where the ex-show room of the car was shown as Rs.5,86,386/-. The quotation issued by the OP No.1 on 23.12.2013 under the signature of its employee Mr. Jayant Kapoor, Sales Manager, the price of the car is stated as Rs.5,86,386/-, in which logistic charges of Rs.8000/- were added. Further Rs.17,618/- were charged as Insurance charges and registration charges of Rs.31,887/- of the vehicle were demanded by the OP No.1. The OP No.1 placed a condition that the vehicle would be sold with a discount only if it would be got registered with the District Transfer Officer, Jalandhar through it. The OP No.1 further impressed upon the complainant to get the vehicle covered with extended warranty by paying additional charges of Rs.6,136/-, thereby making a total amount of Rs.6,50,027/-. On this price, the OP No.1 offered a cash discount of Rs.88,000/- and demanded an aggregate amount of Rs.5,62,027/-.
2. That the complainant allured by the advertisement and the hand bills circulated by the OP No.1, the complainant purchased one new Nissan Micra Mc Dci XE car bearing Chasis No.MDH PCUK 13D8703119 and Engine No.E024431, from OP No.1 on 23.12.2013. The complainant got the vehicle financed from Andhra Bank, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar and her bankers issued a demand draft of Rs.5,62,025/- in favour of the OP No.1 on 24.12.2013, thereby accounts were settled between the OP No.1 and the complainant. The OP No.1 issued a receipt bearing No.1832 dated 24.12.2013, wherein the price of the vehicle was shown as Rs.4,98,384/- (including VAT), insurance Rs.17,618/-, registration charges Rs.31,887/-, against extended warranty Rs.6,136/- and logistic charges of Rs.8000/-. The complainant also got affixed the accessories in the car worth Rs.6640/-. The OP No.1 also gave a copy of its ledger account to the complainant indicating settlement of its accounts with the complainant. The innocent and unsuspected complainant was cheated by the OP No.1, who charged Rs.500/- in cash without any receipt for issuance of a temporary number. The OP No.1 received a sum of Rs.31,887/- as a registration charges, which is being held by it as a trust property and it is duty bound to deposit the same in the State Exchequer and to issue a registration certificate to the complainant immediately but till date the OP No.1 has not discharged the trust and has not issued the registration certificate to the complainant. The temporary registration number is valid till 22.01.2014 and thereafter, the complainant is unable to use the vehicle as she is required to have the vehicle registered and in the absence of the registration of the vehicle, she is liable under Section 56 of the 'Motor Vehicle Act'. The vehicle is lying idle as the complainant is law abiding citizen. On 27.12.2013, the complainant was shocked to know that the ex-show room price of the car make Nissan Micra Mc Dci XE car at Jalandhar was Rs.5,66,386/-. Even an e-mail dated 27.12.2013 was received from the OP No.2 detailing the price of the said car as Rs.5,66,386/- and as such the OPs cheated the complainant and the general public by fraudulently increasing the price of the car in question by Rs.20,000/- and then propagating that they are providing a discount Rs.80,000/- on the billing price of Rs.5,86,386/-. The cheating with the general public was committed by the OPs in connivance with each other and after hatching a conspiracy. The OPs sold the aforesaid car in excess of its maximum retail price i.e. Rs.5,66,386/-. Thereby the OPs cheated the complainant and committed an unfair trade practice.
3. That the complainant had paid the entire amount as demanded by the OP No.1 and now nothing is due. It was represented by the OP No.1 that they would get the Registration Certificate prepared and for that they charged an amount of Rs.31,887/- from the complainant. At the time of delivery of the car, the OP No.1 issued a receipt. Even the temporary number was also issued as PB-10-EH Temp.-8095. The OP No.1 had told the complainant that they would get the vehicle registered with the District Transport Officer, Jalandhar. It was further assured that the Registration Certificate would be delivered to her within no time. The OP No.1 had also not issued the original Sale Certificate, Form 21 and 22 to the complainant on the pretext that those are required for registration of the vehicle, then on 28.12.2013, the complainant contacted the OP No.1 to seek an explanation about the fraud committed by the OPs, but the OP No.1 not only refused to explain their conduct but also misbehaved with her and thereafter, the complainant got served a legal notice but no satisfactory reply has been given and accordingly, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- being refund of the price of the car, the excess amount charged as registration charges, insurance charges, logistic charges and also as compensation towards the mental tension and agony suffered by the complainant on account of unfair trade practices adopted by the OPs, deficiency of service and negligent acts of the OPs and litigation expenses.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint against the answering Dada Motors, which deserves dismissal with special and further alleged that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form as such, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs and further alleged that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of party as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the Forum. The true facts are that the complainant purchased a vehicle of Nissan for Rs.5,86,386/- and Rs.8000/- as logistic charges, Rs.17,618/- as Insurance Charges and Rs.31,887/- for the registration of the vehicle and Rs.6131/- was for extended warranty total amounting to Rs.6,50,027/-, out of which the complainant was given discount of Rs.88,002/- thus the complainant paid only Rs.5,62,027/- to the answering Dada Motors. It is pertinent to mention here that the answering Dada Motors had deposited the registration charges before the registering authority, Jalandhar and the registration number of the vehicle of the complainant was issued by the registering authority is PB-08-CR-0389 and the registration date of the vehicle is 30.01.2014. The answering Dada Motors many times requested the complainant to get the original registering certificate of the vehicle, but the complainant herself failed to get the same and further alleged that the complainant is stating in the complaint that fraud has been committed in the complaint by the OP, which needs a lengthy evidence to prove the same and that cannot be proved by the complainant by filing consumer complaint, rather that can only be proved by filing a suit in the Civil Court. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and further alleged that the complaint through her husband and brother filed a civil litigation in regard to same matter and the present complaint is filed by the complainant just to extort money from the answering OP. On merits, the purchase of the car by the complainant is admitted and further admitted that the advertisement published in the newspaper 'Punjab Kesari' dated 20.12.2013 is admitted and that advertisement is for discount of Rs.88,002/- for dated 20.12.2013, whereas the complainant purchased the car on 23.12.2013, even then a discount of Rs.88,002/- was given to the complainant and the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed. Similarly, OP No.2 filed separate reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous, fabricated and as such, the same is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and further submitted that the instant complaint is barred by the Section-10 of the 'Code of Civil Procedure' as the similar matter is already pending in the Civil Court. It is further alleged that the ex-show room price of car is basic price of the car exclusive of any registration, insurance or loadings and not the maximum retail price and further extended the as well as on road price and the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C33 and closed the evidence and then in additional evidence, the counsel for the complainant further tendered into evidence documents Ex.C34 to Ex.C39 and closed the additional evidence.
6. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 Sh. AK Walia, Adv tendered into evidence two affidavits Ex.OP1/A and Ex.OP1/B alongwith some documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1 and then counsel for the OP No.2 Sh. KS Minhas, Adv tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP2/1 and Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
7. We bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the complainant allured by the advertisement, given by the OP in the Newspaper 'Punjab Kesari' i.e. Ex.C1 and accordingly, he approached OP No.1 for purchase of Micra car and got quotation price list Ex.C2 and then complainant purchased the said car as the OP No.1 gave an offer that a cash discount of Rs.80,000/- will be given, subject to condition if the vehicle has to be got registered from District Transfer Officer, Jalandhar through OP No.1 and as such, the complainant paid Rs.5,62,025/- to the OP No.1 i.e. after getting a loan from Andhra Bank and accordingly, the OP No.1 gave copy of its ledger account to the complainant indicating settlement of its account with the complainant but apart from above, the OP No.1 also charged Rs.500/- in cash without giving any receipt for issuance of temporary number but later on, the complainant was shocked to know that the ex-show room price of the said car make Nissan Micra Mc Dci XE car at Jalandhar was Rs.5,66,386/-, regarding that the complainant got an email dated 27.12.2013, showing the price of same car Rs.5,66,386/-, whereas the OP No.1 charged from the complainant according to ex-show room price i.e. Rs.5,86,386/- and as such, the OP No.1 got Rs.20,000/- excess price amount of the car from the complainant. Apart from that the OP No.1 also got Rs.500/- as a fee of temporary registration and further OP No.1 got registration charges of Rs.31,887/- but the same was not deposited in the State Exchequer of the Government and registration certificate was not provided to the complainant within stipulated period and as such, the complainant is entitled for total amount of Rs.20,00,000/- being the price of the car, excess amount charged as registration charges, insurance charges, logistic charges, compensation etc. and in support of his submission, the learned counsel for the complainant made a reliance upon a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2010 (3) CPJ (NC) 99, title “Kamal Auto Hyundal Vs. Pawan Chand and Others”.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted written argument and accordingly, alleged that the instant complaint is barred by under Section 10 of the 'CPC', being reason the similar matter is pending before the Civil Court, but in order to support this contention, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 or OP No.1 has not brought on the file any pleadings of the Civil Court, where from we can ascertain whether the said civil litigation is in regard to similar cause of action and moreover, the OP itself stated in the written reply that the said civil suit was filed by the husband of the complainant as well as filed by her brother in law. So, parties are not same, therefore, this contention of the OPs is not acceptable.
10. Further, OP No.2, who is a manufacturer submitted in the written argument that the vehicle ex-showroom price on 23.12.2013 was Rs.5,86,386/- and the same model was Ex-Showroom on 27.12.2013 was Rs.5,66,386/- and further submitted that the price of the vehicle is decreased or increased day by day and price list of the vehicle is issued by the manufacturing company daily and the complainant got quotation for purchase of the car Micra for 23.12.2013 and he cannot be a claim with the price of the car increase or decrease thereafter or before the date of purchase, if on the same day there are two prices of the same vehicle, then the complainant can ask for claim, but in this case, the instant complaint of the complainant is without merits.
11. Similarly, the counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that the complainant purchased a vehicle of Nissan Micra for Rs.5,86,386/- and Rs.8000/- as logistic charges, Rs.17,618/- as insurance charges and Rs.31,887/- for registration of the vehicle and Rs.6136/- was for extended warranty and total amount of Rs.6,50,027/-, out of which the complainant was given rebate of Rs.88,002/- and the complainant had paid only Rs.5,62,025/- to the OP No.1 and accordingly, receipt was issued and further submitted that the registration charges of Rs.31,887/-, so deposited with the District Registration Authority, Jalandhar and registration certificate of the complainant was prepared on 30.01.2014 having registration No.PB-08-CR-0389, but despite repeated request by OP No.1, the complainant never turned up for getting the said registration certificate and in support of its version that the amount of registration charges was deposited by OP No.1, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 referred the receipts Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/4 and also referred a copy of registration certificate and further prayed that the OP No.1 has not charged any excess price or any registration charges from the complainant, therefore, the complaint is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
12. We have sympathetically considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and find that the discount of Rs.80,000/- was given by the OPs through advertisement Ex.C1 is only for upto 20.12.2013, it is categorically mentioned on the said advertisement “Last day today” and as such, the complainant is not entitled for the said allurement, given by the OPs for discount of Rs.80,000/-, because the complainant has not purchased the car on the last date i.e. 20.12.2013 and admittedly, the complainant purchased the said car on 23.12.2013 and on that day, the complainant herself got quotation of the price of the car in question, copy of the same is available on the file Ex.C2 and similar copy has been proved on the file by the OP No.2, which is Ex.OP2/1 and price of the car mentioned in the said quotation is Rs.5,86,386/- and insurance charges is Rs.17618/- and registration charges Rs.31,887/- and other charges Rs.8000/-, extended warranty charges Rs.6136/-, in total Rs.6,50,027/-, after accepting the said price, which is mentioned in the price list/quotation, the complainant gave offer and then made a payment for purchase of the car and detail of the amount received from the complainant is mentioned in the document Ex.C3, wherein the price of the car has been shown as Rs.5,86,386/- and logistic charges Rs.8000/-, insurance charges Rs.17,618/-, registration charges Rs.31,887/-, extended warranty charges Rs.6136/-, total Rs.6,50,027/- and then gave a discount of Rs.88,000/- and received from the complainant Rs.5,62,027/-. We like to mention here that despite the expiry of the date for giving discount as per advertisement given in the newspaper Ex.C1, the OP No.1 even then gave a discount of Rs.88,000/- and similarly, the complainant paid the said amount of Rs.5,62,025/-, vide cheque Ex.C4 and then complainant alleged that the OP No.1 has charged excess price of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, because the complainant confirmed on 27.12.2013 that the price of the car was Rs.5,66,386/- and even got an email from OP No.2/Manufacturing Firm, copy of the email is available on the file Ex.C13 and further this version is proved by placing invoice of some other customers Ex.C31 to Ex.C39. Here, we are fully aggrieved with the contention of the counsel for the OP No.2 that the price of the vehicle is decreased or increased day by day and the price given to the complainant is only for 23.12.2013 and on 27.12.2013, the price of the car is admittedly decreased as per version of the counsel for the OP No.2 as elaborated in the written reply as well as in the written argument. So, under these circumstances, we find that the complainant could not able to establish on the file that the OP No.1 has charged the excess price of the car, to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to this claim.
13. Coming to the second claim of the complainant that the OP has charged Rs.500/- without any receipt for issuance of the temporary number, this factum has not denied by the OP No.1 in its reply rather gave a reply that it is wrong that the answering OP charged Rs.500/- in cash without any receipt. It means that the OP No.1 has charged the said amount but after issuing a receipt, but the said receipt neither has been placed on the file by the complainant nor by the OPs rather the receipts for charging of registration fee placed on the file by the OP No.1 i.e. Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/4 and out of these receipts, one receipt is for registration fee of Rs.500/- the said receipt seems to be issued by the OP No.1 for charges of temporary registration number but as per notification of the Government dated 31.08.2012 Ex.C25, no authorization is given to the dealer to charge any amount for issuing of temporary registration number. So, it means that the OP No.1 illegally charged Rs.500/- for temporary registration number of the car and as such, the complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount.
14. Furthermore, the complainant also alleged that the OP No.1 got Rs.31,887/- as registration charges, but the said amount has not been deposited in the State Exchequer and registration certificate of the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant, but we find that the registration certificate of the car was delivered during the pendency of this complaint, so for the concern of excess charges of Rs.31,887/-, for registration of the vehicle, is remained to be considered and to decide, for that purpose, the OP No.1 has also mentioned in the quotation/price list, the registration charges Rs.31,887/- and as per receipts brought on the file by the OP No.1 for depositing the said amount in the District Transfer Office is Ex.OP1/2 for amounting to Rs.30,792/- and receipt Ex.OP1/4 Rs.558/- and total amount for registration charges deposited by OP No.1 comes to Rs.31,350/-, whereas the OP No.1 charged a sum of Rs.31,887/- from the complainant, for the said purpose and as such, it has become clear that the OP No.1 got Rs.537/- as excess amount for the purpose of registration of the vehicle and accordingly, the OP No.1 is liable to return the said amount to the complainant.
15. We have also gone through the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the complainant (Supra) 2010 (3) C.P.J. (N.C) 99, title “Kamal Auto Hyundal Vs. Pawan Chand and Others” and find that the said judgment is not applicable in the present case being the facts of that judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission having not not identical facts to the case in hand.
16. In view of the above detailed discussion, we came to conclusion that the complainant is entitled to get refund back of Rs.500/- as paid temporary registration charges to OP No.1 and further entitled to get refund of excess amount of Rs.537/- paid for registration charges and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted qua OP No.1 and OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1037/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of the car i.e. 23.12.2013 till realization and further OP No.2 is directed to pay compensation for mental harassment to the complainant to the tune of Rs.7000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and therefore, the complaint of the complainant qua OP No.2 is dismissed. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
17. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
22.11.2017 Member President
