Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/180

Rajbeer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Godawari Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Nitasha Mittal

05 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       180

Date of Institution:  17.12.2014

Date of Decision :    5.08.2015

 

Rajbir Singh s/o Gurnam Singh Gill r/o village Sadiq, Tehsil & District Faridkot.                                                                                          ...Complainant

Versus

1. Managing Director/Prop. Godawari Motors Pvt Ltd in front of Focal Point, Ferozepur Road, Moga, Punjab.

2. Regional Office, Hyundai Motors India, D L F Building, Tower B, 3^rd Floor, R.G.T.C.Park, Chandigarh..... (Ops)

    

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

    

   Present:      Ms Nitasha Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                     Sh Mandeep Chanana, Ld Counsel for OP-1.

                      Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-2.

    

    (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                               Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to return the bonus amount worth Rs 20,000/- and to make correct entry in the RC of vehicle and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

   2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a car EON MAGNA PLUS having chassis no. MALA 351ALDM258421 make Hyundai from OP-1 on 6.01.2014 and at the time of purchase of said vehicle, Pankaj Goyal, Sales Officer of OPs assured to give bonus worth Rs 20,000/-within three months of purchase to complainant. It is contended that cost of car was Rs 3,74,000/- which also included insurance cover for car alongwith registration certificate for the same. Complainant paid Rs 57,000/-in cash as advance and on 6.01.2014 paid the remaining amount of Rs 3,17,000/- by demand draft through OBC, Sadiq by raising loan. It is further contended that at the time of receiving demand draft from complainant, said Sales Officer of OPs issued receipt in his hand, wherein assurance was given for making payment of Rs 20,000/-as bonus amount to complainant within three months of purchase of vehicle. OP-1 got insured the car from I C I C I  Lombard and at the time of insurance, they made wrong entry regarding hypothecation by writing H D F C, Faridkot in place of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sadiq and due to this reason, in the RC of the car also, hypothecation is mentioned as H D F C Bank instead of Oriental Branch of Commerce, Sadiq. The complainant returned the copy to OP-1 for making correction, but till date, OP-1 has not returned the copy to complainant after rectification.  But when despite repeated  requests by complainant, Opposite Party No-1 did  not do anything up to the satisfaction of                   complainant, he filed complaint on Customer Care number of Hyundai Motors  on 1.07.2014 and also talked with the officials of OP-2 at their office number in Mohali, but all in vain, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and this act of OPs has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the complaint.

   3                                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18.12.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                 On receipt of notice, OP-1 appeared in Forum through Counsel and filed reply taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try this complaint as vehicle in question is purchased at Moga and no part of cause of action has ever occurred in district Faridkot. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts from this Forum as complainant himself connived with alleged Pankaj Goyal, who has left the job of OP-1 after causing huge financial loss to it. However, on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that OP never entered into any agreement with complainant regarding bonus of Rs 20,000/-on purchase of vehicle as no such scheme was floated by OP-1 or by manufacturer of Hyundai vehicles/OP-2. Said Pankaj Goyal exceeded his authority, knowing fully well that there is no such scheme for payment of any bonus on purchase of vehicles and alleged writing regarding payment of bonus is procured by complainant in connivance with said Pankaj Goyal, who has already left the job of OP after causing huge financial loss to answering OP and it has initiated appropriate proceedings against him for his acts of omission or commission as said Pankaj Goyal had no authority to give any assurance regarding payment of bonus to complainant on purchase of said vehicle. It is averred that actual ex-showroom cost of vehicle was Rs 3,74,445/- and out of this amount complainant was given cash discount of Rs 7,445/- and other charges like insurance charges of Rs 10,995/-, Registration charges and Road Tax of Rs 21,000/- and accessories were to be charged extra. It was never stated by OP that registration certificate and insurance cover would be provided free of cost to the complainant. There is no irregularity on the part of Op-1 in getting the insurance cover issued in respect of vehicle in question. Moreover, complainant could have written to the Insurance Company directly for rectification of wrong entry as OP-1 is not competent enough to rectify the same on its own. Allegation of complainant that OP-1 has not returned the registration certificate of vehicle to complainant. It is further reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

5                                                OP-2 also filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and is baseless. It is further averred that OP-2 operates with all its dealers on a principal to principal basis and if there is any error and commission at the time of retailing or servicing, then, that is the responsibility of concerned dealer. There are no allegations in the complaint regarding performance of car manufactured by OP-2. No, cause of action arises against OP-2. Moreover, complainant has failed to fulfil the mandatory conditions and hence, complainant was not entitled to any exchange benefits because as per exchange bonus claim policy, apart from other terms and conditions, certain documents are required for final claim settlement. Exchange claims were valid only if the claims alongwith necessary documents are received within 120 days from the date of sale from the concerned selling dealer. But in this case, neither the answering OP-2 was informed by the dealer/OP-1 nor requisite documents were received by OP-2 from OP-1 within stipulated period. It is further asserted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as OP-2 has no place of business at Faridkot. Said car was purchased at Moga and no cause of action has ever arisen here in Faridkot. However, on merits, ld counsel for OP-2 has reiterated the same pleadings as taken in preliminary objections and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.                       

6                                       Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-3 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Amit Passi as Ex OP-1/1 and document Ex OP-1/2 and then, closed the evidence. Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Manish Kumar Ex OP-2/1 and documents Ex OP-2/2 to 4 and closed the same on behalf of OP-2.

8.                                 Ld Counsel for complainant argued that on 6.01.2014, complainant purchased a car make EON manufactured by Hyundai./OP-2 through its dealer/OP-1. At the time of sale of car, Sales Officer of OP/Pankaj Goyal promised with complainant that on purchase of car, he will get Rs 20,000/-as exchange bonus within three months. On road price of the car was Rs 3,74,000/-, which included insurance and registration charges. The insurance and registration was to be provided by OP-1. Out of Rs 3,74,000/-, complainant paid Rs 57,000/-in cash as advance and remaining 3.17,000/-was paid through draft after raising loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Sadiq on 16.01.2014. Sales officer of OP-1 Pankaj Goyal gave a receipt regarding the payment of Rs 3,17,000/- and in this receipt he has assured that complainant will get the exchange bonus of Rs 20,000/-within 3 months. The original receipt is Ex C-2. OP-1 got the insurance of car through ICICI Lombard and in the Insurance Policy by mistake of OP-1, the hypothecation was marked in the name of HDFC Bank, Faridkot instead of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sadiq. The same mistake is made in the registration of vehicle. The complainant returned the insurance and registration cover to OP-1 for rectification but they did not return the same after rectification till today. Complainant approached OP-1 many times but they did not give any satisfactory reply. On it, he contacted on customer care number of OP-2 and also contacted in Regional Office of OP-2 but they also did not resolve the problem of complainant. The complainant claimed Rs 20,000/-as exchange bonus which was promised by OP-1 at the time of sale of car and also for rectification in the Insurance Policy and Registration Certificate. Ld counsel for complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint.

9                                    In reply to the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 argued that complainant is not the consumer of OPs. He has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts.  It is wrong that OP-1 has entered into an agreement on 6.01.2014 with complainant that he would be provided with bonus of Rs 20,000/-for purchase of vehicle. There was no scheme for providing bonus either by OP-1 or OP-2. The said Pankaj Goyal exceeded his authority knowing fully well that there is no such scheme for payment of any bonus for purchase of vehicle. The alleged writing regarding payment of bonus has been procured by complainant in connivance with said Pankaj Goyal who has already left the job of OP-1 after causing huge financial loss to them and they have initiated proceedings against him for his act of omission or commission. OP-1 has never announced any scheme of payment of bonus, even the manufacturer Hyundai have not announced any scheme of bonus on purchase of vehicles of their brand provided the purchaser of vehicle submits the attested copy of Registration Certificates of old vehicle both prior to the purchase of vehicle and after having transferred the old vehicle to some other person within the specified period. The OP-1 is required to certify about the purchase of new vehicle and submit the documents to the manufacturer for reimbursement of the Exchange and Loyalty bonus to for onward remittance to a purchase. The complainant has never completed such formalities and he is not entitled for any alleged Exchange and Loyalty bonus. Cost of vehicle ex show room  was Rs 3,74,445/-. Out of this amount, complainant was given a discount of Rs 7,445/-. Other charges i.e insurance charges and registration charges and charges of accessories were to be charged extra from this amount. OP-1 never stated that RC and Insurance would be provided to the complaint in it. There is no irregularity on the part of OP-1 in getting the insurance cover issued in respect of vehicle of the complainant or registration certificate. Even if there is any mistake, the complainant can directly approach the Insurance Company and District Transport Officer to rectify the mistake at his own. OP-1 never promised with complainant for payment of any exchange bonus. It is only complainant and said Pankaj Goyal in connivance with each other prepared a false receipt Ex C-2 with ulterior motive to get monitory benefit. There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10                                     Ld Counsel for OP-2 argued that they operate with all their dealers on principle to principle basis and if there is any omission or error at the time of retailing or servicing of the car, then it is the sole responsibility of concerned dealer. Liability of OP-2 being manufacturer of car is limited and extends to its warranty alone and error/omission/misrepresentation, if any, at the time of retail sales of the car on part of dealer cannot be fastened upon the Company. Title of Hyundai vehicle passes on to the concerned dealer, the moment it is put on a common carrier. As per complainant, the exchange bonus was promised by the representative of OP-1 and there is no interference of OP-2 in their deal. There is a policy of Company to give bonus to their loyal customers and it is given on certain terms and conditions and purchaser have to fulfil those terms and conditions and deposit requisite documents to get the bonus from the Company. The copy of Policy of the Company regarding exchange bonus is Ex OP-2/2. Admittedly, OP-1 or complainant did not submit any documents required as per policy of Company to them, as such, OP-2 is not liable for any bonus and the present complaint may be dismissed against OP-2.

 11                                              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

12                                       It is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased a car from OP-1. The only dispute between the parties is that whether OP-1 at the time of sale of vehicle promised to pay Rs 20,000/-as exchange bonus to complainant. Complainant in his evidence produced receipt dt 16.01.2014 issued by Pankaj Goyal, Sales Manager of OP-1, whereby he admits the payment of vehicle and also promised and gave assurance that payment of Rs20,000/- as exchange bonus will be made to him within three months. On it, counsel for OP-1 argued that there was no scheme for exchange bonus and Pankaj Goyal exceeded his authority and wrongly promised with complainant for this bonus. Said Pankaj Goyal has already left the job of OP-1 after causing huge loss to OP-1. This plea of OP-1 does not seem genuine and carries no weight. As Mr Pankaj Goyal dealt with complainant as  employee and agent of OP-1 and therefore, only OP-1 is vicariously liable for all the acts and conducts of his employee. Pankaj Goyal promised with complainant and gave receipt regarding exchange bonus during the course of his job with OP-1 and said act is done in the course of job and OP-1 is vicariously liable for this act and cannot be stepped back from it. Second grievance of the complainant is that alongwith car the Insurance and Registration charges of the car were also taken by OP-1 from him and they have to provide insurance and registration to complainant and at the time of insurance and RC, they wrongly entered the hypothecation of vehicle with HDFC, Bank, Faridkot instead of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sadiq from where the complainant raised loan for purchase of vehicle. In reply to it, counsel for OP-1 pleaded that it was not their duty to get insurance or registration of vehicle. They charged only Rs 3,74,659/-as ex showroom price and there was not included insurance and registration charges and if there is any mistake, the complainant can get it rectified from Insurance Company and District Transport Office, Faridkot at its own.

13                               In the course of arguments, the complainant produced copy of retail invoice dt 6.01.2014 where ex showroom price of the vehicle is Rs 3,24,659/- and also produced copy of receipt tax paid to Motor Vehicle Department and in receipt, it is clearly mentioned that tax was paid by OP-1. OP-1 admitted that they received payment of Rs 3,74,000/- from complainant                whereas ex show room price of vehicle was 3,24,659/-. So, balance amount is for insurance and  registration charges. Now, OP-1 cannot deny this fact and in this situation, it is the duty of OP-1 to rectify this mistake in insurance and Registration Certificate.

14                                            In the light of above discussion, this Forum reaches at the conclusion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1 and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OP-1 is ordered to pay Rs 20,000/-as exchange bonus as promised by them alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 6.01.2014 when complainant purchased the car from them till the date of realization and also to get the Insurance Policy and Registration Certificate of the vehicle of the complainant rectified from the concerned office. Complainant is also held entitled to Rs 5,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 3,000/-as litigation expenses. The OP-1 is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 5.08.2015                 

  Member                 Member             President                (Parampal Kaur)    (P Singla)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)