DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/28

Date of Institution   : 21.10.2016/29.11.2021

Date of Decision    : 01.09.2022

Bhupinder Singh son of Sh. Pritam Singh resident of 46-A1, Mohindra Colony, Backside Circuit House, Court Road, Amritsar.   

                 …Complainant Versus

1.Deep Honda, Deep Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Khanna Paper Mills, Fatehgarh Churian Byepass, Amritsar through its Managing Director, General Manager, Principal Officer.

2.Honda Cars Lt. Plot No. A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Great Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., through its CEO/Managing Director/General Manager/Principal Officer.   

              …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

 

Present: Sh. Bawa Singh Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Sukhpal Singh Jammu Adv counsel for O.P-1.

Sh. Ajay Shanker Adv counsel for O.P-2.

 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member 

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT): 

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against Deep Honda, Deep Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. & others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant want to purchase one Honda Car and visited the office/showroom of opposite party No. 1 in the month of August 2016 and after verifying the features, the complainant decided to purchase Honda Jazz Su (MT) Diesel Car manufactured by opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 issued offer letter for an amount of Rs. 8,16,731/-. The opposite party No. 1 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No. 2. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 also offered free insurance cover note of the above said car on its purchase for an amount of Rs. 8,16,731 and the registration fee of the car was to be paid by the complainant. It is alleged that after managing the funds from the Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Court Road, Amritsar, the complainant transferred the amount of Rs. 8,16,731/- in the account of the opposite party No. 1 vide transaction No. PSIBH1-6239017243 dated 26.8.2016 which was debited from the account of the complainant and the same was credited to the account of opposite party No. 1. The complainant received the delivery of the above said Car bearing chassis No. MAKGH775AG4003421, Engine No. NISA11512-926 on 26.8.2016 vide invoice No. 153, but bill issued in favour of the complainant was for an amount of Rs. 7,67,731/-. It is further alleged that a cover note was also prepared by the opposite party No. 1 in which the total amount of the purchased car was shown as Rs. 8,10,084/- but it was immediately cancelled by them, but however the complainant succeeded in getting the copy of cancelled insurance cover note. Another cover note of the purchased car was issued by the opposite party No. 1 to the complainant in which the value of the purchased car is shown as Rs. 6,44,298/-. It is further alleged that after few days the complainant approached the office of opposite party No. 1 and inquired about the differences of the amount figures in retail invoice, cancelled cover note and insurance cover note issued by the opposite party No. 1, but the opposite party No. 1 failed to give any reply. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 1 has defrauded the complainant by issuing different invoice price from the bill price and also by showing lesser amount/cost from the Ex-Showroom price at the time of issuing the cover note of the purchased Car. The opposite party No. 1 had received an amount of Rs. 49,000/- more than the actual amount from the retail invoice which was issued to the complainant. It is further alleged that a day before yesterday the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and requested to issue insurance cover note for the actual value of the Car and also demanded Excess amount of Rs. 49,000/- taken from the complainant fraudulently, as such the conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i)To refund the amount of Rs. 49,000/- to the complainant and issue fresh cover note to the extent of actual value of the purchased car. 

ii)To pay Rs. 50,000/-  as compensation alongwith litigation expenses.   

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, not come with clean hands, suppressed material facts etc. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant approached at the business premises of opposite party No. 1 and selected the Jazz SU(MT) Diesel Car to purchase after satisfying its features and paid Rs. 5,100/- on 24.8.2016 as booking amount and requested to issue quotation for Rs. 8,16,731/- after deducting booking amount as he intended to get it financed from the bank. At the time of issue of quotation the price of the car was Rs. 8,21,731/- and after giving all concession of Rs. 54,000/- as per schemes given by the company at that time, the car sold at Rs. 7,67,731/- but on request of the complainant quotation of Rs. 8,16,731/- was issued to him. It is alleged that insurance fee, registration fee and Kit charges were to be paid by the complainant besides sale price of Rs. 7,67731/- of the car after deducting the discount as per scheme of the company. It is further alleged that the complainant has manipulated the facts as the complainant deposited Rs. 5,100/- on 24.8.2016 and Rs. 31,000/- on 26.8.2016 as booking amount, which clearly shown in the account statement and the complainant paid total Rs. 8,51,154/- (i.e. Rs. 7,67,731/- plus Rs. 24,440/- as insurance premium plus Rs. 56,020/- as registration charges plus Rs. 2,963/- as Kit charges, thus only Rs. 1,677/- was refunded by the opposite party No. 1 and the same was offered to the complainant but he refused to accept the same. It is further alleged that inadvertently cover note was issued for Rs. 8,10,084/- but the same was immediately cancelled on getting its print which the complainant received in good faith. The fresh cover note was prepared and issued for sum assured Rs. 6,44,298/- on the request of the complainant as the complainant wanted to adjust the insurance premium within the total amount paid by him to the opposite party No. 1 and if the complainant was not satisfied with the cover note he should approached the National Insurance Company who issued insurance cover for sold vehicles for cancellation or modification. All other allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. The opposite party No. 2 filed written reply by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties, no cause of action. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 2 shares principal to principal based relationship with the opposite party No. 1 based upon dealership agreement executed between the parties, therefore the opposite party No. 2 cannot be held liable. The complainant has not made a single allegation against the opposite party No. 2 and all the allegations have been leveled against the opposite party No. 1. It is further alleged that the complainant has purchased the vehicle by way of financial assistance from Punjab and Sind Bank and complainant has undertaken to pay the installments, as such it is apparent that the said vehicle is under hypothecation and the complainant is only the beneficiary not the owner till filing of the complaint and he is not consumer of opposite party No. 2 and has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. It is further alleged that the payment of Rs. 8,16,731/- was made in the account of opposite party No. 1 and the invoice and cover note were also issued by the opposite party No. 1, therefore the opposite party No. 2 has no role to play in the present complaint. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 denied the case of the complainant. 

5. In order to prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of the quotation Ex.C-2, copy of the certificate issued by the Punjab & Sind Bank Ex.C-3, copy of account statement of the complainant issued by the Punjab & Sind Bank Ex.C-4, copy of retail invoice Ex.C-5, copy of the challan No. 221 dated 26.8.2016 Ex.C-6, copy of the cancelled insurance cover note Ex.C-7, copy of the insurance cover note Ex.C-8, copy of vehicle gate pass Ex.C-9, copy of price list of the Honda with effect from 16.9.2016 Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.  

6. To rebut the case of complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ravi Kapoor Ex.O.P1/1 alongwith documents Ex.O.P1/2 to Ex.O.P1/7 and closed the evidence. 

7. The opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Mangadan Kamanat Bipin, Manager Legal Ex.O.P2/1 and closed the evidence. 

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. Written arguments filed by the complainant and opposite party No. 1.

9. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant  after verifying the features decided to purchase Honda Jazz Su (MT) Diesel Car manufactured by opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 1 issued offer letter for an amount of Rs. 8,16,731/- i.e. Ex.C-2. It is further argued that the opposite party No. 1 also offered free insurance cover note of the above said car on its purchase for an amount of Rs. 8,16,731 and the registration fee of the car was to be paid by the complainant. It is also argued that after managing the funds from the Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Court Road, Amritsar, the complainant transferred the amount of Rs. 8,16,731/- in the account of the opposite party No. 1 vide transaction No. PSIBH1-6239017243 dated 26.8.2016 i.e. Ex.C-4 which was debited from the account of the complainant and the same was credited to the account of opposite party No. 1 and the complainant received the delivery of the above said Car bearing chassis No. MAKGH775AG4003421, Engine No. NISA11512-926 on 26.8.2016 vide invoice No. 153 Ex.C-5, but bill issued in favour of the complainant was for an amount of Rs. 7,67,731/-. It is further argued that a cover note was also prepared by the opposite party No. 1 in which the total amount of the purchased car was shown as Rs. 8,10,084/- but it was immediately cancelled by them. Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that another cover note of the purchased car was issued by the opposite party No. 1 to the complainant in which the value of the purchased car is shown as Rs. 6,44,298/- Ex.C-8. It is further argued that after few days the complainant approached the office of opposite party No. 1 and inquired about the differences of the amount figures in retail invoice, cancelled cover note and insurance cover note issued by the opposite party No. 1, but the opposite party No. 1 failed to give any reply. It is also argued that the opposite party No. 1 has defrauded the complainant by issuing different invoice price from the bill price and also by showing lesser amount/cost from the Ex-Showroom price at the time of issuing the cover note of the purchased Car and the opposite party No. 1 had received an amount of Rs. 49,000/- more than the actual amount from the retail invoice which was issued to the complainant. 

10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 has argued that the complainant approached at the business premises of opposite party No. 1 and selected the Jazz SU(MT) Diesel Car to purchase after satisfying its features and paid Rs. 5,100/- on 24.8.2016 as booking amount and requested to issue quotation for Rs. 8,16,731/- after deducting booking amount as he intended to get it financed from the bank. Ld. Counsel for opposite party also argued that at the time of issue of quotation the price of the car was Rs. 8,21,731/- i.e. Ex.O.P1/2 and after giving all concession of Rs. 54,000/- as per schemes given by the company at that time, the car sold at Rs. 7,67,731/- but on request of the complainant quotation of Rs. 8,16,731/- was issued to him. It is further argued that insurance fee, registration fee and Kit charges were to be paid by the complainant besides sale price of Rs. 7,67,731/- of the car after deducting the discount as per scheme of the company. It is further argued that the complainant has manipulated the facts as the complainant deposited Rs. 5,100/- on 24.8.2016 and Rs. 31,000/- on 26.8.2016 as booking amount, which clearly shown in the account statement i.e. Ex.O.P1/7 and the complainant paid total Rs. 8,51,154/- (i.e. Rs. 7,67,731/- plus Rs. 24,440/- as insurance premium plus Rs. 56,020/- as registration charges plus Rs. 2,963/- as Kit charges, thus only Rs. 1,677/- was refunded by the opposite party No. 1 and the same was offered to the complainant but he refused to accept the same. 

11. In order to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 has placed on record copy of price list Ex.O.P1/2 which shows the price of the Car is Rs. 8,21,731/- and after giving concession of Rs. 54,000/- to the complainant the sale price of the Car is Rs. 7,67,731/- vide retail invoice No. 153 Ex.O.P1/3 which is not disputed by the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 further placed on record copy of insurance policy Ex.O.P1/4, which shows the insurance premium of Rs. 24,440/-. The opposite party No. 1 also placed on record copy of registration details i.e.Ex.O.P1/5, which shows the registration charges as Rs. 56,020/-. The opposite party No. 1 also placed on record copy of invoice Ex.O.P1/6, which shows the amount of Rs. 2,963/- as kit charges. The opposite party No. 1 further placed on record copy of account statement Ex.O.P1/7, which shows that the complainant has paid Rs. 5,100/- on 24.8.2016 and Rs. 31,000/- on 26.8.2016 to the opposite party No. 1 as booking amount. The Ex. O.P.1/7 further shows that the complainant has also paid the amount of Rs. 8,16,731/- to the opposite party No. 1 on 27.8.2016. So, from the perusal of the record it is proved that the complainant has paid the total amount of Rs. 8,51,154/- to the opposite party No. 1 (i.e. Rs. 7,67,731/- plus Rs. 24,440/- as insurance premium plus Rs. 56,020/- as registration charges plus Rs. 2,963/- as Kit charges) and the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs. 1,677/- only from the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 1 is ready to refund the above said amount of Rs. 1,677/- to the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to prove that he has paid the registration charges, insurance charges and kit charges separately to the opposite party No. 1 or he is entitled to get the amount of Rs. 49,000/- from the opposite party No. 1 by placing on record any document. 

12. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint has no merits and the same is dismissed. However, the complainant can approach the opposite party No. 1 to get the above said amount of Rs. 1,677/-. There is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of order will be supplied to the parties by District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.  

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       1st Day of September, 2022 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member