DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.16/16

Mrs. Harpreet Kaur

W/o Sh. Sarabjeet Singh

R/o 1/31, Jangpura Extension

New Delhi-110014.                                                        .…Complainant

                                                VERSUS

Elroy Hyundai

E-13, Defence Colony

New Delhi-110024.

Hyundai Motor India Ltd.

Regd. Office

At: Irrugatuukattai

NH No.4 Sriperubudur Taluk

Kanchipuram District

Tamil Nadu-602117.

Also at:

Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (Head Office)

5^th & 6^th Floor, Corporate One

Baani Building, Plot No.5

Community Centre, Jasola Vihar

New Delhi-110025.                                                         ….Opposite Party

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Date of Institution:18.12.2016

Date of Order       : 15.05.2023

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava,

The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking award of Rs.14,46,176/- for deficiency in services and causing harassment, torture, stress, financial losses.  The complainant is also seeking litigation charges.

1. It the case of the complainant that she was assured by the sales Consultant of OP-1 that on the payment of booking amount of Rs.50,000/- in advance, Creta car would be delivered to the complainant within two months on the full and final payment of the balance amount.

2. It is stated by the complainant that believing an assurance and promise made by OP-1 the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- vide cheque No.084657 on 07.09.2015 and booked the car.  The copy of the receipt of the advance money mentioning that the car would be delivered within two months i.e. on or before 06.11.2015 is annexed as Annexure-D.

3. It is next stated by the complainant that the representative of OP-1 called up complainant and told her that if full and final payment of the balance amount is made then the car would be delivered within 15 days of the payment.

4. The complainant on 03.10.2015 provided a DD dated 01.10.2015 No.753737 for an amount of Rs.9,92,199/- towards balance full and final amount.  The copy of the receipt is annexure-C.

5. It is stated by the complainant that to her utter disappointment the car was not delivered to her in spite of repeated calls and personal visits.

6. It is stated by the complainant that the initial waiting time was of two months which was to be over on 06.11.2015 but after having made full and final payment, it was assured to her that the car would be delivered within 15 days.  Having left with no choice, the complainant sent a legal notice on 20.11.2015.

7.  A letter was sent by OP-1 was received by her on 11.12.2015 dated 08.12.2015 stating reasons behind the delay and that OP-1 had managed to clear a Creta Car which they were ready to deliver.  The reason of delay was mentioned as floods in Chennai due to which the manufacturing plant of OP-2 was shut down.  The letter dated 08.12.2015 is annexed as Annexure-E.

8. It is stated by the complainant that complainant booked the car much prior to 08.11.2015 when Chennai had suffered floods and in fact, car had to be delivered prior to that date i.e 06.11.2015.

9. It is next stated by the complainant that when they went to check the delivery OP-1 informed them that they had to deposit Rs.21,000/- as registration charges of the car had increased which was not the fault of the complainant.  It is stated by the complainant that to save Rs.21,000/- the complainant changed the name of the ownership from Satwah Home Stay to her own name.  It is stated by her that this caused a lot of harassment as the car was booked for the sake of Satwah Home Stay and not in  her personal name which caused financial loss to the complainant.  It is stated that the entire process further delayed the delivery of the car.

10. It is next stated by the complainant that when she visited the showroom of OP-1 on 18.12.2015 she was told to bring the registration number of the car after which the car could be delivered.  The complainant then applied for the registration of Creta on 22.12.2015 and requested for delivery on 27.12.2015 to provide the car on “applied for” basis.

11. It is stated by her that the staff refused and instantly demanded amount of Rs.10,176/- as the price of the car had increased.  When the complainant refused to pay, the staff of OP-1 misbehaved and started abusing the complainant and her husband for which the complainant had called the Police on Number 100.  Having left with no option, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,176/- on 27.12.2015. The car was only handed over to her on 01.01.2016 when the complainant provided the registration number of the car to the OP on 31.12.2015 and the car was registered on 02.01.2016. It is the case of the complainant that this shows the ill motive of OP.

12. In the reply, OP-1 have raised preliminary objections pertaining misjoinder of M/s Elroy Hyundai and it is stated that they are not a necessary party as OP-2 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and OP-1 was only facilitating delivery of the car. It is stated that delivery of the vehicle was given to the complainant as and when the same was received by OP 1 from OP 2.

13. It is next stated that since the circumstances were beyond the control of OP-1 & 2 given the situation of floods in Tamil Nadu the vehicle could not be made available to the complainant.  It is also stated by the OP that the complainant has been filed only to extort money from the OP-1 and that the complainant has not suffered any loss, stress or discomfort on account of any dereliction of duty.

14. On merits, it is stated by the OP-1 that the booking amount was made by Satwah Home Stay. It is denied by the OP that the complainant was promised that the delivery would be made within two months of the booking date i.e. on or before 06.11.2015.  It is further denied by the OP that it was informed to the complainant that if she made full and final payment of the balance amount then the car would be delivered to her within 15 days of the payment.  It is stated by the OP that car could not be delivered on account of act of God and unforeseeable circumstances.

15. It is stated by the OP that registration and other charges are applicable when the delivery of the vehicle is made and invoice is raised and that the complainant on her own changed the ownership of the vehicle from Satwah Home Stay in her name and there were higher charges if the vehicle was to be registered in the name of the firm.

16. It is denied by the OP that the complainant along with her husband visited their showroom on 08.12.2015 and were told by the staff to bring the registration number.  It is stated that as per the directions of the Transport Department and the Hon’ble Supreme Court no vehicle/car shall be delivered without the fixation of High Security Registration Plate.

17. It is stated by OP1 that when invoice was raised the prices of the vehicle have increased and difference of amount of Rs.10,176/- was paid by the complainant accordingly as per the terms and conditions contained in order booking form at serial number 9B.

18. It is further stated by OP1 that process for completing the formalities of registration of the vehicle took some time and the same was got completed by the complainant on 31.12.2015 and accordingly the delivery of the vehicle was made to her by OP 1 along with documents booklet etc. It is stated that complainant has not suffered losses as alleged by her. It is stated that no objections were raised by the complainant while taking the delivery of the said vehicle and all the objections raised thereafter are merely an afterthought.

19. It is stated by the OP-2 who is the manufacturer that no cause of action has arisen against them and no allegations are made out against OP-2.  It is further stated that money was provided to OP-1 by the complainant and the sale transaction happened between complainant and OP-1 and that OP-2 is not a party in retail sale or registration of a car.

20. It is stated by OP-2 that it operates with its dealers on a ‘principal to principal basis’ and any error or omission at the time of retailing or servicing of the car is the whole responsibility of the dealer.

21. It is stated that cars are purchased by the concerned dealers from OP-2 against payment and thereafter the purchased cars are sold by the dealer to the customers.

22. OP-2 has further relied on various judgments on the point of relationship between manufacturer and dealers.

1. Honda Cars India Ltd. vs Sudesh Berry 2021 SCC Online 1313
2. Tata Motors Ltd. vs Antonio Paulo Vaz 2021 SCC Online 125
3. M/s Hero Honda Ltd. Vs. K.B. Muraleedharan & Anr 1986-94 (NS) 955
4. Indian Airlines Corporation Vs. Patel Ramubhai Shanker Lal & Anr.1986-94 (NS) 437
5. Vijay Traders Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd.1995 (6) SCC 566
6. Indian Oil Corporation V. Consumer Protection Counsel, Kerala & Anr. (1994) II CPJ 21 (SC)
7. Maruti Udyog Limited V. Arjun Singh and Anr R.P No. 2636 of 2006

23. In the rejoinder, the complainant has only stated that they are not aware about the relationship between OP-1 & OP-2 and that both the OPs are hands in glove with each other in delaying the delivery of the vehicle and that the complainant being an innocent customer has no knowledge about the agreement between them. It has also been stated by the complainant in response to the reply of OP-1 that what has been stated by OP-1 is white lie as floods in Tamil Nadu was caused much later in the month of November, 2015 and the car was to be delivered at that time which has no connection with the floods.  In the rest of the rejoinder, the contents of the reply are mostly denied. 

Evidence affidavits and written submissions have been filed by all the parties. Since the complainant appeared in person, written submissions have not been filed by her although she was heard at length.

It is noticed that OP-1 who has received money from the complainant has not denied the fact that the car was booked and the entire payment was made by the complainant on 03.10.2015.  It is also noticed that order on the booking form dated 07.09.2015 wherein complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- it has been subsequently written “waiting period within two months” and that the entire payments were made in the name of Satwah Home Stay.  The complainant also paid the registration charges.  It is not clear as to why an additional amount of Rs.10,176/- was charged from the complainant when the entire cost of the car was already paid by her in October 2015 and this fact has been accepted by OP 1 who has also issued a receipt for it being Annexure C. Clause 9B of the order form relied on by the OP1 has not been filed. This act is an unfair practice on the part of OP1.

OP2 in their reply has nowhere stated that delay in delivery of the car was on account of floods in Tamil Nadu and has in fact stated that OP 2 has nothing to do with it.

Therefore, OP 1 is directed to return to the complainant, sum of Rs.10,176/- which was taken as additional cost of the car from her with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of deposit i.e 27.12.2015 till realization. OP 1 is also liable to pay interest @ 6% on 10,42,199/- for the delayed period of delivery of two months.

          This sum is to be paid within three months from the date of the order. No order as to costs.

Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on the website