DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.302 of 14.12.2015
Decided on: 6.4.2018
Dr.Hemant Ojha, R/o 18 E Ambey Apartments District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Goyal Automobiles, Patiala, full address Ashirwad complex village-Chamarhedi Rajpura Road, Bahadurgarh District Patiala Mr. D.P.Goyal, Director.
2. Hyundai Motors India Limited (HMIL) C113-114, Office Suites Elante Plot 178-178A, Industrial and Business Park, Phase 1, Chandigarh, 160002A.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Sachdev Vij,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Amit Jain,Advocate counsel for OP no.1.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Dr.Hemant Ojha, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that on 16.9.2013 he went to the show room of OP no.1 for the purchase of a new car. It was settled there that he will pay Rs.1,50,000/- in cash and rest of the amount of Rs.5,50,000/-via loan and thus he paid Rs.1,50,000/- in cash to Op no.1. It is stated at the time of taking delivery of the car in question on 17.9.2013, the invoice No.210 issued for the amount of Rs.6,72,909/-. Not only this, documents i.e. booklet and the second key of the car were not given by Op no.1 rather took blank cheque from the complainant. It is further stated that the price of the car as mentioned in the two different invoices was different and the vehicle got insured for the lesser amount than the actual value of the ex-show room price. It is stated that bonus and exchange offer benefits were also not given to the complainant. It is further stated that registration of the car was got done by Op No.1 on lesser amount after using false signatures on the documents. It is stated that the complainant tried his best to settle the issue but the OPs did not give any response even after getting served legal notice upon them. The complainant requested the OP no.1 many times for giving the original documents of the car in question but OPs did not hear his request. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs ; to pay the benefit of exchange bonus, to handover all documents regarding sale of vehicle and registration of the vehicle; to pay the claim amount of Rs.12lacs alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP no.1 only who on being put to notice appeared through counsel and filed the written version. Preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is admitted that Op no.1 is a dealer of Hyundai (HMIL) Cars under the name and style of Goyal Automobiles at Patiala. It is stated that the advertized scheme was subject to terms and conditions and as per policy of HIMIL. It is stated that Ex-showroom price of the car was Rs.6,72,919/- as on the date of delivery and the same was mentioned in the delivery challan. This price included the VAT @13% and Sc on VAT @ 10%. The complainant was given discount of Rs.37,715/- on the car which included cash discount of Rs.12,573/-+ free insurance worth Rs.20,142/-+ free accessories worth Rs.5000/- and the net value of the car after discount worked out to Rs.6,35,204/- and the retail invoice No.217 was raised for the said amount. It is stated that the OP no.1 has paid the RC tax on Rs.5,59,000/- having deposited Rs.3266/- in excess with the State Govt. The official of OP no.1 also requested the complainant in writing to receive his cheque on account of exchange bonus but the complainant did not come forward to receive the same. It is stated that since the value of the car was about Rs.7lacs and the complainant had only paid Rs.1,50,000/- in cash on the day of purchasing of the car and was not in possession of sanctioned loan form from any bank, he was requested to issue a security cheque of Rs.5,50,000/-. It is stated that since the balance price of the car was to be paid by the complainant, as such as per the policy prevailing in the market second key was kept by OP no.1 and the same was immediately handed over to the complainant on the day when the loan amount was received by Op no.1.There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP no.1. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C13 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for Op no.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Anjay Goel, Gen. Manager of the OP and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the OP No.1 had charged more amount than the actual show room price, from the complainant for the purchase of the car in question. Not only this, it had not provided the requisite documents and the second key of the car to the complainant. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for OP no.1 has vehemently argued that in fact, the ex-showroom price of the car in question was Rs.6,72,919/-, as is mentioned in the delivery challan. After giving discount of Rs.37,715/- i.e. cash discount of Rs.12,573/- + free insurance worth Rs.20142/- + free accessories worth Rs.5000/-, the bill/invoice no.217 dated 17.9.2013 for an amount of Rs.6,35,204/- was raised. The OP requested the complainant to come and collect Rs.3266/- which was charged in excess mistakenly from him for the tax purpose but the complainant did not come forward to collect the said amount.
7. No doubt the complainant had tendered copies of three invoices, Exs.C2 to C4, of even date showing different ex-show room prices of the car in question. However, from the perusal of the copy of letter dated 19.2.2014,Ex.C13,supplied by the OP No.1 to the complainant for the information sought by him under the RTI Act,it is evident that in para no.3(a) (b) of the said letter, it is stated that Ex-show room price of the car was Rs.6,72,919/- and after giving discount of Rs.37,715/- an invoice No.217 dated 17.9.2013 for Rs.6,35,204/- was raised by OP no.1. This fact has not been rebutted by the complainant, meaning thereby that the OP No.1 had sold the car in question to the complainant for Rs.6,35,204/-. From the copy of ‘form receipt of tax’ annexed alongwith Ex.C13, it is evident that the OP No.1 had deposited in total a sum of Rs.34654/- as registration fee with the concerned registering authority. As such the complainant was to pay in total a sum of Rs.6,69,858/- (Rs.6,35204/- + Rs.34654/-). From the receipt dated 17.9.2013, Ex.C11, it is evident that the complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- and also paid Rs.5,50,000/- vide cheque dated 17.9.2013,Ex.C9, to the OP. From the said documents , it is evident that the OP No.1 had received in total a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant, for the purchase of the car in question, whereas, in fact he was to pay Rs. 6,69,858/-, as referred to above. In this way, the OP No.1had charged Rs.30,142/- in excess from the complainant. By not refunding the said amount, the OP no.1 has committed deficiency in service to this extent and is liable to refund the said amount alongwith interest. The OP No.1 is also liable to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment to him alongwith cost of litigation. So far as the grievance of the complainant for non supply of the documents and 2nd key of the car in question and getting insured the car by depicting the IDV of Rs.5,77,885/- is concerned, it may be stated here that in para no.9 of the letter dated 19.2.2014,Ex.C13, it has been stated that the RC of the car, service book and 2nd key were duly delivered to the complainant at his home. In the written version as well as in para no.7 of the said letter, the OP No.1 has stated that the insurance policy was mistakenly issued for the IDV of Rs.5,77,855/- and a fresh insurance policy was got issued by paying an additional amount of Rs.850/- .These facts have also not been rebutted by the complainant. Thus, the OP No.1 cannot be said to be deficient in providing services to this extent . So far as the deficiency of service on the part of the OP no.2 is concerned, it may be stated that neither any specific allegation has been leveled nor prove against it. Thus the complaint filed against Op no.2 is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against Op no.2 and allow the same against Op no.1. OP No.1 is directed in the following manner:
- To refund Rs.30142/- alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of purchase of the car in question i.e. 17.9.2013 till realization;
- To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation , for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant;
- To pay Rs.5000/-as cost of litigation.
The OP no.1 is further directed to comply the order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:6.4.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
